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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 13 and 19 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20; they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument,
Claim 1 recites:
in response to the terminal device entering an inactive state, automatically releasing the pre-configured resource when a variation of reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of a measured cell of the terminal device exceeds a certain threshold.
Corresponding features can be found in independent claims 14 and 20.
The Office Action acknowledges that Mi does not disclose the above-identified feature, but paragraph [0062] of Chen is cited for making up for Mi's deficiencies. That cited paragraph states:
In some implementations, a UE may be configured with a
(absolute) threshold to determine whether the current TA (or the
associated configured grant(s)) is valid or not. For example, a Reference Symbol Received Power (RSRP) threshold may be configured (via dedicated signaling or broadcast system information) to determine whether the current TA (or the
associated configured grant(s)) is valid or not. In this case, if the RSRP of the downlink pathloss reference (or the RSRP downlink reference signal) is above the threshold, the TA (or the associated configured grant(s)) may be considered as valid and the
UE may use the pre-configured PUSCH resources (e.g., the
PUSCH resources associated with the downlink reference signal of
a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB)) for small data
transmission..... For example, an RSRP range may be configured (via dedicated signaling or broadcast system information) to determine whether the current TA (or the associated configured grant(s)) is valid or not. In this case, if the RSRP of the downlink pathloss reference (or the RSR is within the range, the TA (or the associated configured grant(s)) may be considered as valid and the UE may use the pre-configured PUSCH resources (e.g., the PUSCH resource(s) associated with the downlink reference signal of an SSB) for small data transmission.
As shown above, Chen teaches configuring an RSRP threshold or range such that, if a measured RSRP value exceeds the threshold or falls within the range, the UE may use pre- configured PUSCH resources. However, the RSRP threshold/range disclosed by Chen is set for RSRP values, whereas the threshold defined in the present claims is set for a variation in RSRP values.
For example, assume an RSRP value measured at a time is V1 and an RSRP value measured at a next time is V2. Chen compares the value V1 with the RSRP threshold/range, and compares the value V2 with the RSRP threshold/range. By contrast, claim 1 defines to compare the variation of RSRP, i.e., V2-V1, with the certain threshold (i.e. "a variation of reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of a measured cell of the terminal device exceeds a certain threshold"). As is evident, Chen's method of comparing absolute RSRP values with a threshold is fundamentally different from claim 1's method of comparing a change in RSRP with a threshold.
By using the method of Chen, different RSRP thresholds/ranges should be configured for different TAs, increasing the signalling overhead and processing complexity. In contrast, by comparing the variation of RSRP with a threshold, only one threshold needs to be configured for different TAs, which greatly decreases the signalling overhead and processing complexity, so that the preconfigured resources can be timely released.
In summary, the above-identified features of claim 1 is neither taught nor suggested by the combination of cited references. Claims 14 and 20 include corresponding features to claim 1 and are therefore also not obvious. Thus, the independent claims and their respective dependents are patentable.
Reply, examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed feature recites:
“in response to the terminal device entering an inactive state, automatically releasing the pre-configured resource when a variation of reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of a measured cell of the terminal device exceeds a certain threshold. “
Applicant argues that the variation of RSRP in Chen is merely for comparing absolute RSRP values to a threshold as opposed to a variation in the RSRP exceeding a threshold, as claimed. However, and as acknowledged by the applicant, Chen teaches that if the RSRP falls within a validity range, the TA or the associated configured grants may be deemed as valid, as shown below (emphasis added):
[0062]”…In some implementations, a UE may be configured with a range to determine whether the current TA (or the associated configured grant(s)) is valid or not. For example, an RSRP range may be configured (via dedicated signaling or broadcast system information) to determine whether the current TA (or the associated configured grant(s)) is valid or not. In this case, if the RSRP of the downlink pathloss reference (or the RSRP of the downlink reference signal) is within the range, the TA (or the associated configured grant(s)) may be considered as valid and the UE may use the pre-configured PUSCH resources (e.g., the PUSCH resource(s) associated with the downlink reference signal of an SSB) for small data transmission….”
In other words, the RSRP is compared with two thresholds and if the RSRP falls between the two thresholds, the configured grants would be considered valid. Otherwise, these resources would be released. Since there are two thresholds at play, the range can be thought of as the variation of the RSRP with respect to one of the thresholds compared to at least a value related to the other.
The applicant proceeds to provide an example related to temporal variation. However, neither the claim nor the specification limit the nature of the variation recited in the claim. If the applicant seeks a different interpretation, applicant is respectfully requested to amend the claims accordingly.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-MPEP 2111.
In addition, given that Chen compares that the absolute value and the range of RSRP to thresholds, this makes comparing the temporal variation of RSRP an obvious alternative to one with ordinary skills in the art.
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 20210219297) hereinafter Mi in view of CHEN et al. (US 20230030443 A1) hereinafter CHEN.
Regarding claim 1,
Mi teaches a data transmission method, comprising: receiving, by a terminal device, first configuration information, sent by a network device, wherein the first configuration information is configured to determine configuration information of a pre-configured resource (network device configures terminal device with the pre-configured resource [0064]), and in response to the pre-configured resource being activated, transmitting uplink data or receiving downlink data via the pre-configured resource by the terminal device (terminal transmits uplink data on the active preconfigured resource [0063]-[0064]; element 201 of Fig. 2).
Mi does not explicitly teach after the pre-configured resource being activated by the terminal device, in response to a first timer being configured, starting the first timer; and in response to the first timer expiring, deactivating the pre-configured resource by the terminal device; and in response to the terminal entering an inactive state, automatically releasing the pre-configured resource when a variation of reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of a measured cell of the terminal exceeds a certain threshold.
Chen teaches after the pre-configured resource being activated by the terminal device, in response to a first timer being configured, starting the first timer (a life timer for pre-configured PUSCH resources which indicate the validity duration for the resource [0062]); and in response to the first timer expiring, deactivating the pre-configured resource by the terminal device (when the life timer expires, the corresponding pre-configured resources become invalid [0062]); and in response to the terminal entering an inactive state, automatically releasing the pre-configured resource when a variation of reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of a measured cell of the terminal exceeds a certain threshold (while the UE is in RRC_inactive state, releasing pre-configured PUSCH resources when the measured RSRP change exceeds a configured range [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chen to the teachings of Mi. One would have been motivated to do this, with reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve power consumption (Chen [0034]).
Regarding claim 2,
Mi and CHEN teach all features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Mi does not explicitly teach wherein one of the following: the first configuration information and suspend configuration are carried in radio resource control (RRC) releasing message; and the first configuration information is carried in the suspend configuration, and the suspend configuration is carried in the RRC releasing message; and wherein the suspend configuration is configured to determine an RRC inactive configuration parameter.
CHEN teaches the first configuration information and suspend configuration are carried in radio resource control (RRC) releasing message (pre-configured PUSCH configuration included in the RRC Release message which includes suspend configuration [0007], [0038]-[0043], and [0048]); and wherein the suspend configuration is configured to determine an RRC inactive configuration parameter (suspend configuration containing RRC inactive parameters [0007], [0038]-[0043], and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of CHEN to the teachings of Mi. One would have been motivated to do this, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve power consumption (CHEN [0034]).
Regarding claim 3,
Mi and CHEN teach all features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Mi further teaches wherein the first configuration information comprises at least one of:
first indication information, configured to indicate whether an initial state of the pre-configured resource is an activated state or a deactivated state (first indication indicating preconfigured resource state [0007]);
second indication information, configured to indicate a duration of a first timer, wherein the first timer is configured to trigger deactivation of the pre-configured resource;
third indication information, configured to indicate a maximum value of a first counter, and the first counter is configured to trigger deactivation of the pre-configured resource; and resource configuration of the pre-configured resource.
Regarding claim 4,
Mi and CHEN teach all features of claim 3, as outlined above.
Mi further teaches all the features of claim 4, where claim 4 adds further limitations to an un-selected option of claim 3.
Claims [14, 15, 16, 17] “terminal method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1, 2, 3, 4] “communication method”.
Claim 20 “CRM” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “communication method”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, and 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
The reason for allowing claims 5 and 6 is as follows: Mi and Liu teach transmitting an RRC resume request and receiving an RRC release message. Xu teaches in response to the terminal device determining that small data needs to be transmitted, selecting random access resource corresponding to the small data to initiate random access process, and sending an RRC resume request message, configured to apply for activating the pre-configured resource, to the network device ([0400]). However, Mi, CHEN, Liu and Xu do not teach receiving, by the terminal device, an RRC release message sent by the network device, and performing integrity protection verification for the RRC release message; wherein in response to the verification passing, the pre-configured resource is activated by the terminal device; and in response to the verification failing, the terminal device enters an idle state, and context of the terminal device is released by the terminal device.
None of the prior art teach or fairly suggest these limitations in combination with the other limitation of Claim(s) 5 and 6. Although the other limitations are used in the art, none of the prior art of record teach or provide motivation to combine to reach a similar result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465