Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/966,173

METHOD AND USER EQUIPMENT FOR REPORTING UE CAPABILITY FOR SMALL DATA TRANSMISSION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 14, 2022
Examiner
SUGDEN, NOAH JAMES
Art Unit
2475
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
8 granted / 11 resolved
+14.7% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
59
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
69.7%
+29.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 11 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness. Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (2020/0229076), hereinafter Jin, in view of Kim et al. (2023/0247721), hereinafter Kim, and Christofferson et al. (2025/0097822), hereinafter Christofferson. Re. Claims 1 and 8, Jin teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, ¶0049 - The terminal may include user equipment (UE), a mobile station (MS), a cellular phone, a smart phone, a computer, or a multimedia system capable of performing a communication function; and ¶0053 - User equipment (hereinafter, referred to as “UE” or a “terminal”) 1a-35 accesses an external network through the eNBs 1a-05, 1a-10, 1a-15, and 1a-20 and the S-GW 1a-30.) comprising at least one processor (¶0016 - The terminal includes a transceiver, and at least one processor), at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the at least one processor; storing one or more computer-executable instructions, and wherein the content of a UE capability information message indicates whether the UE supports at least one of random access (RA)-SDT or configured grant (CG)-SDT (Fig. 1, ¶0049 - The terminal may include user equipment (UE), a mobile station (MS), a cellular phone, a smart phone, a computer, or a multimedia system capable of performing a communication function, Examiner interprets that a UE inherently contains a memory in order to carry out the method it is provided, since Jin discloses a UE in Fig. 1, Examiner interprets that UE contains a non-transitory computer readable medium) wherein the UE reports UE capability for small data transmission (SDT) (Fig. 5), the method comprising: receiving, from a base station (BS), a UE capability enquiry message; set, in response to receiving the UE capability enquiry message (Fig. 5 & ¶0158 - the UE capability is configured); and transmitting, to the BS, the UB capability information message after setting the content of the UE capability information message (Fig. 5 & ¶0158 – [T]he terminal 1e-01 transmits a UE capability information message including the UE capability to the base station in operation 1e-10.) Yet, Jin does not explicitly teach setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports multiple CG-SDT configurations in a case that the UE supports the CG-SDT and the UE supports up to a maximum number of active CG configurations; and wherein the CG-SDT comprises a transmission of data or signaling over allowed radio bearers via a CG type 1, white the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) INACTIVE state. However, Kim does expressly teach wherein the content of a UE capability information message indicates whether the UE supports at least one of random access (RA)-SDT OR configured grant (CG)-SDT (¶0346 - SDT may be configured to either take place on RACH or configured uplink grant (CG) resources. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”); and wherein the CG-SDT comprises a transmission of data or signaling over allowed radio bearers via a CG type 1 (¶0346 - SDT may be configured to either take place on RACH or configured uplink grant (CG) resources (e.g., type 1 CG resources)), while the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) INACTIVE state (¶0360 – [T]he wireless device may perform the subsequent transmission while staying in the RRC inactive state). Yet still, The combination of Jin, and Kim do not expressly teach setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports RA-SDT configuration or CG-SDT configuration on a dedicated bandwidth part (BWP). However, Christofferson explicitly teaches setting the content of the UE capability information message (¶0025 - The configuration of CG resources for UE UL SDT is contained in the RRCRelease message) to further indicate that the UE supports RA-SDT configuration OR CG-SDT configuration (¶0033 - the UE-specific capability for the SDT procedure may indicates one or more of other capabilities regarding the beam failure detection (BFD), beam failure recovery (BFR), L1 channel state information (CSI) report, discontinuous reception (DRX), configured grant (CG) transmission and dynamic grant (DG) transmission, etc. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”) on a dedicated bandwidth part (BWP) (¶0110 - FFS CG-SDT resource can be configured on BWPs other than initial BWP) and setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports restricting data transmission from a given logical channel (LCH) to a configured set of CG configurations for SDT (¶0204 - when a SDT procedure is initiated and some or all of the available UL data in DRBs configured for SDT is mapped to a LCH which is subject to LCH restrictions which do not allow transmission on a CG-SDT resource, the CG-SDT procedure is not selected). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Kim and Christofferson to the teaching of Jin. The motivation for combining the teaching of Kim to Jin would be as Kim provides a means of increasing efficiency of the transmission by allowing the SDT to be stored on configured grant resources while the UE is performing in an RRC INACTIVE state (Kim ¶0360). Additionally, the motivation for combining Christofferson and Jin is that Christofferson provides a means of increasing efficiency of the transmission by setting a capability message to indicate the UE supports CG-SDT on a bandwidth part (Christofferson, ¶0033) and indicate a restriction of the logical channel for a set of CG configurations (Christofferson, ¶0204). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Re. Claims 2 and 9, Jin, Kim, and Christofferson teach Claims 1 and 8. Yet, Jin, Kim, and Chin do not expressly teach a method and a UE wherein the RA-SDT comprises the transmission of the data or the signaling over the allowed radio bearers via an RA procedure, while the UE is in the RRC INACTIVE state. However, Christofferson teaches a method and a UE wherein the RA-SDT comprises the transmission of the data (¶0005 - General procedure to enable transmission of small data packets from INACTIVE state (e.g., using MsgA or Msg3 of the Random Access (RA) procedure) [RAN2] (see, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.213 V16.5.0, for example physical layer procedures, including RA). Additionally, examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features to be mapped because of the presence of “Or.”), OR the signaling over allowed radio bearers via an RA procedure while the UE is in the (RRC) INACTIVE state (¶0003–0005 - For the RRC_INACTIVE state:… General procedure to enable transmission of small data packets from INACTIVE state (e.g., using MsgA or Msg3 of the Random Access (RA) procedure) [RAN2] (see, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.213 V16.5.0, for example physical layer procedures, including RA)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Christofferson to the teaching of Jin and Kim. The motivation to combine Christofferson and Jin would be to increase efficiency of the transmission as Christofferson provides information regarding the forms of SDT that can be transmitted between a UE and a BS in an enquiry message within a new radio wireless mobile communication network. (¶0003-0005, Christofferson). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Re. Claims 15 and 20, Jin, Kim, and Christofferson teach Claims 1 and 8. However, Jin and Kim do not explicitly teach wherein the dedicated BWP is not an initial BWP. Yet, Christofferson explicitly teaches wherein the dedicated BWP is not an initial BWP (¶0110 - FFS CG-SDT resource can be configured on BWPs other than initial BWP). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Christofferson to the teaching of Jin and Kim. The motivation to combine Christofferson and Jin would be to increase efficiency of the transmission as Christofferson provides that the dedicated BWP is not restricted to be only on the initial BWP (¶0110, Christofferson). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Re. Claims 16 and 21, Jin, Kim, and Christofferson teach Claims 1 and 8. However, Jin, and Kim, do not expressly teach setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports applying logical channel (LCH) restriction related parameters for SDT. Yet, Christofferson explicitly teaches setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports applying logical channel (LCH) restriction related parameters for SDT (¶0238 - The method 300 may include the UE receiving a release message from a serving radio network node of the communication network in association with the UE transitioning from an active mode to the inactive mode in advance of receiving the data into the UL transmission buffer of the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Christofferson to the teaching of Jin, and Kim. The motivation to combine Christofferson and Jin would be to increase efficiency of the transmission as Christofferson provides that the capability information includes support for a logical channel restriction (¶0238, Christofferson). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, in view of Kim, Christofferson, Park et al. (2021/0051653), hereinafter Park. Re. Claims 18 and 23, Jin, Kim, and Christofferson teach Claims 1 and 8. However, Jin, Kim, and Christofferson do not expressly teach setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports an unlicensed band for SDT. Yet, Park explicitly teaches setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports an unlicensed band for SDT (¶0300 - The first wireless device 2912 may send, to a base station 2904, at least one uplink message 2918 (e.g., uplink RRC message) comprising the sidelink capability information (e.g., the unlicensed band support information 2908) of the second wireless device 2916). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Park to the teaching of Jin, Kim, and Christofferson. The motivation to combine Park and Jin would be to increase efficiency of the transmission would be as Park provides that a capability information message can indicate support for an unlicensed band for SDT (¶0300, Park). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, in view of Kim, Christofferson, Yue et al. (2024/0276498), hereinafter Yue. Re. Claims 19 and 24, Jin, Kim, and Christofferson teach Claims 1 and 8. However, Jin, Kim, and Christofferson do not expressly teach setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports an autonomous retransmission for SDT. Yet, Yue explicitly teaches setting the content of the UE capability information message to further indicate that the UE supports an autonomous retransmission for SDT (¶0018 - The non-first SDT data refers to autonomous transmission of the first SDT data and/or autonomous retransmission of the first SDT data and/or subsequent SDT data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Yue to the teaching of Jin, Kim, and Christofferson. The motivation to combine Yue and Jin would be to increase efficiency of the transmission would be as Yue provides a capability information message can indicate support for an autonomous retransmission for SDT (¶0018, Yue). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed on 09/10/2025, with respect to claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-24 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection. Examiner has reviewed the argument put forth against the previously presented Claim 17, now incorporated into the independent claim and has provided a new reference Christofferson, which Examiner has used to replace both the previously presented reference Xu and Chin. Christofferson provides that a message is sent to indicate whether a UE has a restriction from a logical channel to a configured grant for SDT purposes (¶0204 - when a SDT procedure is initiated and some or all of the available UL data in DRBs configured for SDT is mapped to a LCH which is subject to LCH restrictions which do not allow transmission on a CG-SDT resource, the CG-SDT procedure is not selected), as well as discloses transmitting information while in RRC_INACTIVE (¶0003–0005 - For the RRC_INACTIVE state:… General procedure to enable transmission of small data packets from INACTIVE state (e.g., using MsgA or Msg3 of the Random Access (RA) procedure) [RAN2] (see, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.213 V16.5.0, for example physical layer procedures, including RA)), and teaches wherein a BWP is not the initial BWP (¶0110 - FFS CG-SDT resource can be configured on BWPs other than initial BWP). As such, Examiner upholds the previously presented rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the new grounds of rejection. Additionally, by means of dependency, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments for allowance for newly presented claims 15-16, 18-21, and 23-24, as they depend upon Claims 1 and 8 and have each been rejected in their own means as presented above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kiilerich Pratas et al. (2023/0403703) See: Fig. 3A, 3B, 3C, and ¶0019-0092. Park et al. (2023/0379880) See: Fig. 13A, 13B, 13C, 20, ¶0173-195, and ¶0237-0238 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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. /N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475 /HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 14, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 14, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 10, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587465
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SUBMARINE CABLE PATH PLANNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12507307
USER EQUIPMENT AND CALL RECOVERY METHOD EXECUTED BY THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12477455
INTELLIGENT QUERYING FOR NETWORK COVERAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12457075
CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION OVERHEAD REDUCTION BY NETWORK SIGNALED USER EQUIPMENT SPECIFIC ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE MEASUREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Patent 12452940
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONFIGURING DATA COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ROBOT COMPONENTS IN DIFFERENT NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 11 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month