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 .
Priority
1. The present application is a continuation of application PCT/CN2021/118199 filed 09/14/21.
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on two applications filed in China on 09/14/20 and 09/14/21. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2021/118199 or PCT/CN2020/115129 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Foreign priority to these two applications is not granted; however, the Examiner notes the claim for domestic priority, which is valid.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module for” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein the RRC procedure is selecting from… an RRC-less procedure”. This is logically inconsistent; the claim and its dependent claims are therefore rejected. The other independent claims (and some of the dependent claims) have similar language, and are likewise rejected.
4. Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1, the parent claim, recites “verifying… a set of… conditions”. Claim 2 recites that “the verifying… fail[s]”. These two events are inconsistent—the verifying cannot both happen and fail. If the “verifying” of claim 2 is intended to be a separate verification attempt, claim 2 should not recite “the” verifying. The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected, as is claim 13.
5. Claims 5, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites conditions that comprise “no security update is needed”. It is unclear to the Examiner what the bounds of this limitation are—specifically, what it means for a device to “need” something. The other claims have similar language. The claims are therefore indefinite.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 6, 8 – 10, 12, 17, and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #111-e R2-2006582)
Regarding claim 1, 3GPP discloses subject matter relating to ISDT. Specifically, 3GPP discloses a method comprising:
verifying, by a user equipment (UE), a set of preconfigured inactive small data transmission (ISDT) conditions in a wireless network, wherein the UE is configured to perform small data transmission in a UE INACTIVE state when the set of preconfigured ISDT conditions are met (UE in RRC_INACTIVE has procedures for SMT (ie ISDT); see section 1; UE can perform SMT if eg the available data volume is favorable compared to the cost of transitioning back into RRC_CONNECTED; see section 2.3.1)
selecting an ISDT initiation procedure based on one or more sets of selection conditions, wherein the one or more sets of selection conditions comprise a set of selection conditions for a radio resource control (RRC) procedure and a set of selection conditions for an uplink (UL) resource obtaining procedure, and wherein the RRC procedure is one selecting from an RRC-based procedure and an RRC-less procedure, and the UL resource obtaining procedure is one selecting from a random access (RA) procedure and a configured grant (CG) procedure (one initiation procedure (eg UL resource obtaining procedure) selects from CG or RA based on conditions incl. if the TA is valid and if there are CG resources available; see section 2.3.1)
initiating small data transmission in the UE INACTIVE state following the selected ISDT initiation procedure (SMT for UE in RRC_INACTIVE is initiated; see sections 1, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.3.1); and
performing one or more data transmissions in the UE INACTIVE state (SMT for UE in RRC_INACTIVE; see section 1 and 2.1).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the set of selection conditions for the UL resource obtaining procedure is to select the CG procedure when CG conditions are met, otherwise the RA procedure is selected, and wherein the CG conditions comprise valid preconfigured UL resources, valid time alignment, and a data volume is smaller than or equal to a preconfigured CG data volume threshold (CG is used unless it is not available, otherwise RSA is used. CG is used when CG resources are configured, TA is valid, and data is below a certain amount; see sections[sic] 2.3.1).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the ISDT initiation procedure is one selecting from an RRC-based RA procedure, an RRC-based CG procedure, an RRC-less RA procedure, and an RRC-less CG procedure (RRC_INACTIVE UE; see section 1; CG/RA; see section 2.3.1).
Regarding claim 9, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein one set of selection conditions is used to select the ISDT initiation procedure (one initiation procedure selects from CG or RA based on conditions incl. if the TA is valid and if there are CG resources available; see section 2.3.1)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the RRC-less CG procedure is selected when a set of RRC-less CG conditions is met, the RRC-based CG procedure is selected when a set of RRC-based CG conditions is met, a RRC-less RA procedure is selected when a set of RRC-less RA conditions is met, and the RRC-based RA procedure is selected when a set of RRC-based RA conditions is met, and wherein the set of RRC- less CG conditions comprise valid preconfigured UL resources, valid time alignment, a data volume is smaller than or equal to a preconfigured CG data volume threshold, and RRC-less ISDT is supported; the set of RRC-based CG conditions comprise valid preconfigured UL resources, valid time alignment, and a data volume is smaller than or equal to a preconfigured CG data volume threshold; the set of RRC-less RA conditions comprise no security update is needed, no reconfiguration is needed, and RRC-less ISDT is supported, and a data volume is smaller than or equal to a preconfigured IDST data volume threshold; the set of RRC- based RA conditions comprise a data volume is smaller than or equal to a preconfigured IDST data volume threshold and ISDT is supported (RRC UE; see section 1; CG is used unless it is not available, otherwise RSA is used. CG is used when CG resources are configured, TA is valid, and data is below a certain amount; see sections[sic] 2.3.1).
Regarding claim 12, 3GPP discloses a user equipment (UE) (UE; see section 2) comprising:
a radio frequency (RF) transceiver that transmits and receives radio signals in a wireless network (UE; see section 2; the Examiner understands a UE as comprising an RF transceiver);
an inactive small data transmission (ISDT) verification module (UE; see section 2; the Examiner understands a UE performing ISDT verification as comprising an ISDT verification module) that verifies a set of preconfigured ISDT conditions in the wireless network, wherein the UE is configured to perform small data transmission in a UE INACTIVE state when the set of preconfigured ISDT conditions are met (UE in RRC_INACTIVE has procedures for SMT (ie ISDT); see section 1; UE can perform SMT if eg the available data volume is favorable compared to the cost of transitioning back into RRC_CONNECTED; see section 2.3.1)
a selection module (UE; see section 2; the Examiner understands a UE selecting ISDT procedures as comprising a selection module) that selects an ISDT initiation procedure based on one or more sets of selection conditions, wherein the one or more sets of selection conditions comprise a set of selection conditions for a radio resource control (RRC) procedure and a set of selection conditions for an uplink (UL) resource obtaining procedure, and wherein the RRC procedure is one selecting from an RRC-based procedure and an RRC-less procedure, and the UL resource obtaining procedure is one selecting from a random access (RA) procedure and a configured grant (CG) procedure (one initiation procedure (eg UL resource obtaining procedure) selects from CG or RA based on conditions incl. if the TA is valid and if there are CG resources available; see section 2.3.1)
an initiation module (UE; see section 2; the Examiner understands a UE initiating ISDT to comprise an initiation module) that initiates small data transmission in the UE INACTIVE state following the selected ISDT initiation procedure (SMT for UE in RRC_INACTIVE is initiated; see sections 1, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.3.1); and
an ISDT module (UE; see section 2; the Examiner understands a UE performing ISDT as comprising an ISDT module) that performs one or more data transmissions in the UE INACTIVE state (SMT for UE in RRC_INACTIVE; see section 1 and 2.1).
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.
7. Claim(s) 7, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #111-e R2-2006582)
Regarding claims 7 and 18, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein when the RA procedure is selected based on the selection conditions for the UL resource obtaining procedure (RA procedure can be selected if conditions are appropriate; see section 2.3.1), a two-step RA procedure is selected (can be 2 step RA; see section 1) when a RSRP is larger than a preconfigured two- step RSRP threshold.
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the 2 step RA procedure is selected when the RSRP is past a threshold.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of 3GPP to include the RSRP threshold, as this is implicitly disclosed by 3GPP. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, in order to have a functioning system. Performing a transmission (ie the RA process) is only possible if the RSRP is sufficiently high, and this is generally tested and measured. Making use of the implicit disclosures of a reference are generally understood to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
Regarding claim 11, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the ISDT initiation procedure is selected from the RRC-based RA procedure and the RRC-based CG procedure when the RRC-less procedure for ISDT is not supported by the wireless network (one initiation procedure selects from CG or RA; see section 2.3.1)
3GPP does not explicitly disclose doing so when the RRC-less ISDT procedure is not supported.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of 3GPP to use one of the RRC based procedures when the RRC less procedures are not supported, as this is implicitly disclosed. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if RRCless procedures cannot be used, then RRC based procedures would need to be used in order to transmit. Making use of the implicit disclosures of a reference are generally understood to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Kundu - US 20210390004 A1 – 5G
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464