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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 4 March 2026 has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 5, 14 and 25 are amended.
Claims 3, 4, 16-24, 26-32 and 34-44 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 5-15, 25, 33 and 45 are currently pending.
The outstanding objection to Claim 25 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claim.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5-15, 25, 33 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 14 and 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
The Office notes that specific arguments as to the outstanding rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 5-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have not been presented in the responses filed 4 February 2026 or 4 March 2026. However, the rejection of these claims is maintained herein in light of Applicant’s amendments for the reasoning provided below. Further, Claims 14-15, 25, 33 and 45 are also rejected for similar reasoning.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-15, 25, 33 and 45 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.
Regarding Claim 1, claim language “a bearer of the SDT” is repeated at both lines 4 and 9. It is not clear if both recitations refer to the same bearer of the SDT. Further, the claim recites language phrased in a manner that is difficult to determine between the cause and effect for certain limitations of the claimed method. Specifically, the claim recites the following clause:
“when the terminal is in an idle state or an inactive state, determining first data is to be sent, and that the configuration information of the SDT does not meet a transmission requirement of the first data, sending, by the terminal, first information to the network device, wherein the first information indicates that there exists the first data to be sent at the terminal and a bearer of the first data is not a bearer of the SDT.”
As drafted, this language is not clear if “determining first data to be sent” is a further condition that needs to be true or a step that would be performed in response to the “when the terminal is in an idle state or an inactive state” being true. Additionally, the language “and that the configuration information of the SDT does not meet a transmission requirement of the first data” appears to be a further determination performed leading prior to the “sending” step; however, it is not clear whether this determination needs to be met in addition to the idle/inactive state in order for the sending step to occur.
Similarly, the claim recites the following language:
“wherein the configuration information of the bearer of the SDT comprises an identifier of the bearer of the SDT, the determining, by the terminal, according to the configuration information of the bearer of the SDT, that the bearer of the first data is not the bearer of the SDT comprises: determining, by the terminal, according to the identifier of the bearer of the SDT, whether an identifier of the bearer of the first data is the same as the identifier of the bearer of the SDT, when the identifier of the bearer of the first data is different from the identifier of the bearer of the SDT, determining that the bearer of the first data is not the bearer of the SDT.
However, it is not clear whether the phrase starting with “the determining…” is dependent on the “configuration information of the bearer of the SDT compris(ing) an identifier of the SDT” or is separate from that configuration.
Applicant is respectfully requested to review this claim language to clearly set forth the causes/determinations and resultant actions that are part of the method being performed.
Claims 2, 5-13 and 45 depend on Claim 1 and fail to resolve the deficiencies therein. Accordingly, Claims 2 and 5-13 are also rejected as being indefinite.
Claims 14 and 25 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, particularly with regard to repeated recitation of “a bearer of the SDT”. Claims 15 and 33 depend on Claim 14 and fail to resolve the deficiencies therein. Accordingly, Claims 15 and 33 are also rejected as being indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 5-15, 25, 33 and 45 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:.
Tseng et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0180223) a UE rebuilding an RRC connection with a serving cell via RRC establishment/setup procedure after being in RRC_IDLE mode (paragraph 0144).
Chandramouli et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0215302) an access node implicitly activating a bearer for the UE in response to determining that the UE wishes to transmit small data (paragraph 0073).
Agiwal et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0022247) discloses the UE selecting logical channels from an uplink SDT grant (Figure 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472