DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 09/19/2025.
Claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 15-16 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 7-10, 12-14, and 17-20 have been cancelled to date.
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 claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 15-16 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.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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)(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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Publication 2022/0086899 A1, Shih et al. (hereinafter “Shih”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Shih teaches:
A method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system (para. [0054]; and UE 116/300 of Figs. 1 and 3), the method comprising:
receiving a system information block (SIB) including configuration information including an ra-searchspace (paras. [0273]-[0274], [0287]-[0289], [0039]-[0041], and [0342]; Fig. 24, block 2505 of Fig. 25, and block 2605 of Fig. 26, —a UE can receive various PDCCH ConfigCommon field parameters including the ra-searchspace parameter from a network BS via SIB);
identifying whether the configuration information includes an sdt-searchspace; (paras. [0342], [0359], [0382], [0396], and [0470] —a UE can determine if configuration information/parameters of an SIB includes search space information for small data transmission (SDT), during RA and/or after RA is completed);
initiating a random access (RA) procedure for a small data transmission (SDT), wherein the RA procedure for the SDT is either a 4-step RA procedure or a 2-step RA procedure; (paras. [0005], [0331]-[0334], [0470], and [0479]; block 2510 of Fig. 25, and block 2705 of Fig. 27 —a UE can initiate an RA procedure including SDT, which can be 2-step or 4-step RA procedure, after receiving SIB configuration);
based on a completion of the RA procedure, monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) addressed to a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) in the sdt-searchspace for a downlink reception or an uplink transmission until the SDT is terminated, in case that the sdt-searchspace is included in the configuration information (paras. [0136]-[0144], [0366], [0372], [0380]-[0381], [0383], [0396], and [0470]-[0472] —after the SDT of the RA, a C-RNTI associated with the RRCRelease can be reused and a CORESET search space can be restored to monitor the PDCCH, for a subsequent SDT, in a case where the SIB configuration is included a corresponding SDT search space); and
monitoring a PDCCH in the ra-searchspace, for the downlink reception or the uplink transmission, in case that the sdt-searchspace is not included in the configuration information (paras. [0343], [0345], and [0377] —an RA search space that is configured via SIB can be used for a SDT as well as a non-SDT transmission, during an RA procedure, in a case where an designated SDT search space is not otherwise included in an SIB configuration).
With Respect to Claim 6, Shih teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the PDCCH addressed to the C-RNTI is monitored for a subsequent downlink reception or a subsequent uplink transmission (paras. [0136]-[0144], [0366], [0372], [0380]-[0381], [0383], [0396], and [0470]-[0472] —a C-RNTI associated with the RRCRelease can be reused and a CORESET search space can be restored to monitor the PDCCH for a subsequent DL SDT —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With Respect to Claim 11, this claim recites similar features to independent Claim 1, except Claim 11 recites a terminal in a wireless communication system, comprising: a transceiver and a controller coupled to the transceiver (para. [0054]; and UE 116/300 w/processor 308 and transceiver 314 of Figs. 1 and 3). As such, Claim 11 is likewise rejected under §102 based on Shih for the same reasons explained above for Claim 1.
With Respect to Claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent Claim 6. As such, Claim 16 is likewise rejected under §102 based on Shih for the same reasons explained above for Claim 6.
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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0078875 A1, Ou et al. (hereinafter “Ou”).
With Respect to Claim 5, Shih teaches the method of claim 1, including 2-step/4-step RA procedure(s).
However, Shih does not explicitly teach:
receiving a contention resolution identity; and
identifying a contention resolution based on the contention resolution identity being received, wherein the RA procedure is completed based on the contention resolution.
Ou does teach:
receiving a contention resolution identity (paras. [0195]-[0200] and [0233]-[0237]; and Figs. 10A-B and 11 —for a CBRA procedure a contention resolution ID, i.e., a C-RNTI, can be received by a UE); and
identifying a contention resolution based on the contention resolution identity being received, wherein the RA procedure is completed based on the contention resolution (paras. [0196]-[0200], [0233]-[0237], [0283], and [0308]; and Figs. 10A-B and 11 —a corresponding RA procedure can be determined to be complete based on a matching contention resolution ID being received).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shih’s 4-step RA procedure including SDT with a contention based RA (CBRA) procedure, as taught by Ou.
The motivation for doing so would have been to include contention resolution as part of a RA-based SDT procedure, as recognized by Ou (paras. [0196]-[0200], [0233]-[0237], [0283], and [0308]; and Figs. 10A-B and 11).
With Respect to Claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent Claim 5. As such, Claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Shih in view of Ou, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 5.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461