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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant does not define an inactive mode/state. This was pointed out in the mapping of the prior art rejection in the last office action. The applicant uses the term “inactive state” in paragraphs 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40-42, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 71, and 72 but fails to define what constitutes an “inactive state” in any technical manner. The only description that can be inferred is that an “inactive state” is different than a “connected state”. The applicant’s remarks do not attempt to describe what technical details they believe an “inactive state” covers. The Examiner has no choice but to interpret the term inactive mode in any an extremely broad context given the lack of any description to define the term supplied by the applicant. The Examiner has explained that the when Choi transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration complete message, Choi is entering an inactive mode. This is a reasonable interpretation because the act of completing reconfiguration in Choi leads to more limited activity by the UE and thus an “inactive mode”. The Examiner could not possibly allow the claims over Choi for featuring an “inactive mode” when the applicant does not define an “inactive mode” when considering what Choi discloses about performing small data transmission during a period of limited activity by the UE based on configuration information received by the UE.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11, 24-26, 28, 29, 31-33, 35, 37, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 9,930,956 to Choi et al.
As to claim 1, Choi teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (device 102), the method comprising: receiving, from a base station (eNodeB 106) while operating in a connected mode, configuration information for performing small data transmission (col. 10, lines 22-35 explains how the configuration information which defines the scheduling method can define small data transmission) while operating in an inactive mode (col. 7, line 61-col 8, line 27, device 102 receives configuration information from eNodeB 106 before it has applied the configuration which leads to an inactive mode); applying the configuration information for small data transmission in response to entering the inactive mode (col. 8, lines 28-31, device 102 transmits RRC connection reconfiguration complete message, which reads on “entering an inactive mode”, and actives configuration received from base station. The examiner could not find any limiting definition of the term “inactive mode” or “state” disclosed by the applicant.); and performing, while operating in the inactive mode, at least one small data transmission with the base station according to the configuration information for small data transmission (col. 10, lines 22-35).
As to claims 24 and 31, they are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
As to claims 2, 25, and 32, see col. 9, line 66-col. 10, line 21.
As to claim 3, 11, 26, 29, 33, 35, and 38, see col. 2, line 57-col. 3, line 8.
As to claims 5 and 28, see col. 8, lines 28-31.
As to claim 37, see col. 10, lines 22-47 and col. 3, lines 4-8.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 30, 36, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 9,930,956 to Choi et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0274525 by Wei et al.
As to claims 13, 30, and 36, Choi teaches the subject matter of the independent claims however Choi does not explicitly teach the use of HARQ retransmissions. Wei teaches a method of determining data of a small data transmission is not successfully transmitted to a base station on a pre-configured uplink resource according to a HARQ process and autonomously retransmitting the data of the small data transmission to the base station on the pre-configured uplink resource (paragraph 381-388). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Choi regarding applying configuration information from a base station with the teachings of Wei regarding using HARQ because the applicant’s claim is using HARQ for its intended purpose.
As to claim 39, Choi teaches the subject matter of claim 24 however Choi does not explicitly teach that the RRC message that provides the configuration information is an RRC “release” message.
Wei teaches providing a small data configuration via an RRC release message (paragraph 380).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Choi regarding applying configuration information from a base station with the teachings of Wei regarding using a RRC release message to convey such information because Choi is already providing the information using an RRC message and Wei shows how such information could be supplied using the “release” message.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454