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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 22 December 2025, has been and carefully considered.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19 are amended.
Claims 20, 21, and 23-27 are canceled.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are currently pending.
The outstanding objections to Claims 7, 11, 13 and 19 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15, 17-19 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the teachings of the newly cited prior art below.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 regarding the rejection of Claims 10-12 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the cited portion of Park “…clearly shows "communicating with the wireless device" is transmitting/receiving one or more packets to/from the wireless device". This means that the UE is NOT in the RRCinactive state, but in the RRC_connected state. The Applicant submits that Park is silent on the Alternative A.” The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion. As now cited in the rejection below, Park clearly discloses that the UE is in an RRC inactive state (paragraph 0288) when performing the RNA update procedure by transmitting an RNA update indication to the base station (paragraph 0290). Applicant’s statement regarding the “receiving a second message…” clause is moot, as this clause is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of being claimed in the alternative to the first clause. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 10-12 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been updated to clarify the Office’s position and is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication US 2024/0014979), hereinafter Lei.
Regarding Claim 13, Lei discloses an apparatus of processing data transmission (Figure 17 – UE 1700), applied to a User Equipment (UE), the apparatus comprising:
a memory (Figure 17 – memory 1705),
a transceiver (Figure 17 – transceiver 1710), and
a processor (Figure 17 – processor 1704),
wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, the transceiver is configured to send and receive data under control of the processor (paragraphs 0149-0150); and
the processor is configured to read the computer program in the memory (paragraphs 0149-0151) and execute following:
sending small data packets to a network node when the UE is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) inactive state (Figure 9 and paragraph 0112 – the UE utilizes a pre-configured uplink resource for small data transmissions in RRC_Inactive mode);
performing a RRC-related process and/or a Non-Access Stratum (NAS)-related process during sending the small data packets to the network node (Figure 9 and paragraph 0112 – the UE sends an SDT to the BS in an RRCResumeRequest, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation).
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the same steps as performed by the apparatus of Claim 13. Claim 1 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as Claim 13.
Note: Independent claims 1 and 13 contain an alternative limitation (“RRC-related process and/or a Non-Access Stratum (NAS)-related process”); as mapped above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the Non-Access Stratum (NAS)-related process. Limitations in dependent claims further limiting the non-selected “Non-Access Stratum (NAS)-related process” are thereby not required as part of the BRI either.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Lei discloses performing the RRC-related process during sending the small data packets to the network node comprises: during sending the small data packets to the network node, when a Radio Resource Control Connection Resume Request (RRCResumeRequest) message is sent (Figure 9 and paragraph 0112 – the UE sends an SDT to the BS in an RRCResumeRequest, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), and/or, when information fed back by an underlying layer of the UE indicates that sending the small data packets to the network node by the UE in the RRC inactive state has succeeded (Note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative), stopping a timer of the periodic RNA (paragraph 0080 – the UE stops a timer T380 used to trigger processing of the RNA update).
Regarding Claims 5-8 and 17-19, Lei discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13 as described above. As noted in the rejection of the independent claims, these dependent claims further limit the non-selected alternative (“Non-Access Stratum (NAS)-related process”). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the additional features of Claims 5-8 and 17-19 and Lei anticipates these claims.
Regarding Claim 9, Lei discloses sending the small data packets to the network node when the UE is in the RRC inactive state comprises: sending the small data packets to the network node in the RRC inactive state with a RRC signaling (Figure 9 and paragraph 0112 – the UE sends an SDT to the BS in an RRCResumeRequest, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation); or sending the small data packets to the network node in the RRC inactive state without a RRC signaling (Note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative).
Claims 10-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20180270894), hereinafter Park.
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses a method of processing data transmission, the method being performed by a network node (Figures 25 and 26), the method comprising: when the network node determines that a User Equipment (UE) is in a process of sending small data packets in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) inactive state (paragraph 0288 – a wireless device in an RRC inactive state performs an RNA update procedure), stopping a timer of a periodic Radio Access Network Notification Area (RNA) (paragraph 0290 – the base station stops a network RNA update timer in response to communicating with the wireless device via RRC messaging); or
receiving a second message sent by the UE, wherein the second message comprises an indication that the UE is to send non-small data packets or is to send a new Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message; and sending a response message to the UE (Note: this limitation (comprising “receiving a second message” and “sending a response message”) is claimed in the alternative to the “stopping a timer” limitation and is therefore not part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 11, Park discloses the network node determines that the UE is in the process of sending the small data packets in the RRC inactive state, in at least one of following manners:
receiving the small data packets sent by the UE (paragraph 0288 – the UE performs the RNA update procedure in an RRC inactive state; paragraph 0290 – the base station stops a network RNA update timer in response to communicating with the wireless device via RRC messaging);
receiving the small data packets sent by the UE on a pre-configured resource (Note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative);
receiving an RRC establishment cause or an RRC recovery cause sent by the UE, the cause being the small data packets (Note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative);
receiving an indication sent by a network node current serving the UE, wherein the indication indicates that the UE sends the small data packets in the RRC inactive state (Note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses the limitations of Claim 10 as described above. As noted in the rejection of Claim 10, the limitation comprising the steps of “receiving a second message” and “sending a response message” is claimed in the alternative to the “stopping a timer” limitation. As Claim 12 further limits the non-selected option from Claim 10, it is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, Park anticipates this claim.
Regarding Claim 22, Park discloses an apparatus of processing data transmission, applied to a network node, the apparatus (Figure 3, either of base station 1 or 2) comprising: a memory (paragraph 0059 and Figure 3, memory 322A/322B), a transceiver (Figure 3, communication unit 320A/320B), and a processor (Figure 3, processors 321A/321B), wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, the transceiver is configured to send and receive data under control of the processor (paragraph 0059 and 0079 – the processor causes operation of single-carrier and/or multi-carrier communications); and the processor is configured to read the computer program in the memory and execute steps (paragraph 0079 – the processor reads instructions in the memory to control operations) of the method of processing data transmission according to claim 10 (refer to the rejection of Claim 10 set forth above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 4, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Ohlsson et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20210385727), hereinafter Ohlsson.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Lei discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, as described above. However, Lei does not disclose not initiating a periodic Radio Access Network Notification Area (RNA). In an analogous art, Ohlsson discloses this. Specifically, Ohlsson discloses cancelling a pending RNA update upon expiry of a timer if the UE is not in coverage (paragraph 0102, 0109-0110, or 0124-0127 where the UE transitions to RRC IDLE rather than performing RNA update). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lei and Ohlsson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce unnecessary control signalling and radio resource loading, as well as preserve device power consumption (paragraph 0006 of Ohlsson).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Lei discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, as described above. It is further noted that limitation “during sending the small data packets to the network node, when a timer of the periodic RNA expires and a Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB) is recovered, not initiating the periodic RNA, wherein the Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB) comprises at least one of SRB1 and SRB2” is claimed in the alternative and is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation. However, Lei does not disclose during sending the small data packets to the network node, when a timer of the periodic RNA expires, not initiating the periodic RNA. In an analogous art, Ohlsson discloses this. Specifically, Ohlsson discloses cancelling a pending RNA update upon expiry of a timer if the UE is not in coverage (paragraph 0102, 0109-0110, or 0124-0127 where the UE transitions to RRC IDLE rather than performing RNA update). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lei and Ohlsson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce unnecessary control signalling and radio resource loading, as well as preserve device power consumption (paragraph 0006 of Ohlsson).
Conclusion
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