CTFR 17/784,208 CTFR 89711 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to the communication filed on 02/27/2026. Response to Arguments 07-38 Applicant's arguments with respect to claim (s) 23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-11 and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190349886) in view of NOKIA et al.: “On efficient transition from RRC_CONNECTED to RRC_IDLE/RRC_INACTIVE", 3GPP DRAFT; R2-1913104, (3GPP), FRANCE, hereafter “Nokia”, further in view over Quan et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140056198) . Regarding claim 23 Lee disclose a user equipment comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including a computer program instructions, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the user equipment at least to para. 133, “A UE 1210 includes a processor 1211, a memory 1212” : receive a criteria related to in the inactive state para. 114-118, Fig. 10, step S1010-S1020: “in step S1010, the terminal may enter the RRC_INACTIVE state. In step 1020, the terminal may receive a configuration related to a first DRX cycle and a second DRX cycle” ; and the criteria including timer information para. 90, “The second DRX cycle may include at least one of a DRX length, a paging frame, and a paging occasion. In addition, the UE can be configured for a timer value” ; Lee does not specifically disclose receive an indication, from a network read as: “Network or gNB” , to operate in an inactive state . However, Nokia teach, section 2, “The trigger is specified for the case where the UE prefers state transition from CONNECTED to INACTIVE”. Lee and Nokia are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to connection state parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nokia in the system of Lee so the network controls and indicate the state transition to the user equipment. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently manage the UE transition and reduce the power consumption. Lee and Nokia does not specifically disclose, based on a determination regarding expiry of the timer, transmit, in the inactive state, an indication that data transmission is expected. However, Quan teach, para. 138, “when the inactivity timer expires but more data of the UE still needs to be sent, the inactivity timer is restarted or a new timer is started, thereby prolonging the active state of the UE in the data transmitting process, reducing the failure in scheduling data of the UE in time when the UE enters the inactive state after the inactivity timer expires” Lee, Nokia and Quan are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to connection state parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quan in the system of Lee and Nokia to enable the system to indicate the continuation of data transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the occurrence of a long data transmission delay when the data is not scheduled in time. Regarding claim 2 Lee disclose , wherein the criteria comprises at least one of: one or more of the following: a time period for an expected transmission occasion for the user equipment, an expiry of a timer, and the timer reaching a threshold value para. 97, Fig. 6, “Alternatively, whenever the UE receives a PDCCH or a transport block, the UE can re-start the timer that is being executed”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the second of the alternatives. Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the timer is started upon the user equipment entering the inactive state. However, Nokia teach, section 2, “gNB implementation specific INACTIVE timer seems more appropriate choice in case that the time period without UL/DL data transmission is not known for the gNB”. Lee and Nokia are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to connection state parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nokia in the system of Lee so the network controls and indicate the INACTIVE state duration. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently manage the UE state duration and reduce the power consumption. Regarding claim 3 Lee disclose , wherein the criteria is further related to a particular time the small data transmission can be transmitted by the user equipment in the inactive state para. 114-118, Fig. 10, step S1010-S1020: “in step S1010, the terminal may enter the RRC_INACTIVE state. In step 1020, the terminal may receive a configuration related to a first DRX cycle and a second DRX cycle” . Regarding claim 4 Lee disclose , wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the user equipment at least to perform: determine that the criteria has not yet been met; and in response to the criteria not being met, withhold performing the small data transmission in the inactive state para. 7, “stopping the use of the first DRX cycle if the first paging message indicates that downlink data has been transmitted to the terminal without an RRC state transition”; Regarding claim 5 Lee does not specifically disclose , where the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the user equipment at least to perform: determining information relating to the inactive state; and providing the information to the network. However, Nokia teach, section 2, “When the UL/DL data transmission is finished the UE can indicate its preferred RRC state the indication using UE assistance information which may be used by the gNB for determining whether to send the UE to IDLE or INACTIVE” . Lee and Nokia are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to connection state parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nokia in the system of Lee to be able to indicate to the network the user’ current state. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the power consumption and extra processing signaling. Regarding claim 6 Lee disclose , wherein information relating to the inactive state comprises one or more of the following: an indication of whether data transmission is expected, a time for which the user equipment has been in the inactive state, a time for which the user equipment has been in the inactive state without data transmission, an indication of whether the user equipment has been in the inactive state for a given amount of time, an indication that a timer has expired, or a data transfer pattern para. 105, “the UE transmits a message 3 or a random-access preamble on the PUSCH”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the last of the alternatives. Regarding claim 7 Lee disclose , wherein the data transmission is associated with at least one data radio bearer, at least one logical channel or at least one protocol data unit session para. 85, “the downlink data may be transmitted to the UE in the RRC_INACTIVE state on the downlink shared channel” . Regarding claim 8 Lee disclose , wherein the data transmission is downlink or uplink user data para. 85, “the downlink data may be transmitted to the UE in the RRC_INACTIVE state during the random-access procedure” . Regarding claim 9 Lee disclose , the information related to the inactive state comprises an indication of whether data transmission is expected para. 8, “A terminal in the RRC_INACTIVE state can efficiently perform data transmission and reception” . Regarding claim 10 Lee disclose , the data transmission is associated with at least one data radio bearer para. 10, “transmitting of broadcast channel (BCH) information, dynamic allocation of resources to the UEs 10 in both UL and DL, configuration and provisioning of eNB measurements, radio bearer control” . Regarding claim 11 the limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 10. Claim 24 recites an apparatus corresponding to the device of claim 23 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 23. Regarding claims 8 and 10 the limitations of claims 8 and 10, respectively , are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 2 and 4, respectively . Regarding claims 13-14 the limitations of claims 13-14, respectively , are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 2-3, respectively . Regarding claims 15-20 the limitations of claims 15-20, respectively , are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 5-11, respectively . Claim 21 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 23 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 23. Claim 22 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 24 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 24. Claim 25 recites a computer–program product corresponding to the method of claim 21 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 21. Claim 26 recites a computer–program product corresponding to the method of claim 22 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 22. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Chi Pham can be reached on (571) 272-3179. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471 /SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 2 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 3 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 4 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 5 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 6 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 7 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 8 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 9 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/784,208 Page 10 Art Unit: 2471
Prosecution Insights