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 19 May 2026, has been and carefully considered.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claims 2, 14, 20, 21, and 23-27 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-19 and 22 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13, 15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said Claims 1 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 regarding Claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first states, on page 9 of the response, that “(t)he Applicant submits that Lei fails to disclose "Non-Access Stratum (NAS)" and thus Lei is silent on "Non-Access Stratum (NAS)-related process" in claim 1 of the present application.” However, due to the NAS-related process being claimed in the alternative to RRC-related process, this language is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Applicant further states, on page 10 of the response, the following (emphasis provided by Applicant):
“The Applicant thinks that, Ohlsson discloses that the "pending RNA update is cancelled" if the UE is out-of-coverage. However, Lei discloses that the UE sends the RRCResumeRequest message to the BS. In other words, the UE is within the coverage. Therefore, when the UE in Lei is within the coverage, the UE never cancels the RNA updating. Those skilled in the art will never obtain the technical inspiration from Ohlsson. Ohlsson will not provide the technical inspiration to combine with Lei. The combination of Lei and Ohlsson is improper.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first notes that the claim language does not require any consideration of whether the UE is in coverage or out of coverage as part of the “sending” and “performing” steps. Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (Note: the Office presumes that Applicant’s phrasing “technical inspiration” is directed to this concept), the Office recognizes 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, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ohlsson specifically provides a motivation to combine the teachings with Lei (i.e., reducing unnecessary control signaling and radio resource loading, as well as preserve device power consumption as described in paragraph 0006).
Applicant further states the following, on page 11 of the response (emphasis added by Applicant):
“The Applicant further notes that "sending small data packets to a network node when the UE is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) inactive state" in claim 1 of the present application is a separate step different from "performing a RRC-related process and/or a Non-Access Stratum (NAS)-related process during sending the small data packets to the network node". In view of this, the Applicant believes that Lei also fails to disclose "performing a RRC-related process and/or a Non-Access Stratum (NAS)-related process during sending the small data packets to the network node" in claim 1.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Regarding Applicant’s contention of the sending and performing steps being separate, the Office notes that the claim language explicitly states that “performing the RRC-related process” is performed “during sending.” From a temporal point of view, the claim language encompasses an interpretation where the “sending” and “performing” steps overlap (in whole or in part) due to the phrase “during”, absent further limitation as to a specific point in time at which the “performing” step occurs. As such, the Office submits that Lei’s teaching (Figure 9 and paragraph 0112 – the UE sends an SDT to the BS in an RRCResumeRequest) meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the sending and performing steps, absent further detail in the claim language.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 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. The Office first notes that the argued portion of the claim language recites “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, stopping a timer of a periodic Radio Access Network Notification Area (RNA).” This language does not contain any further detail as to: a) how the network node determines that the UE is in the process of sending small data packets; b) where during the process of sending that the network node determines the UE is in said process; c) the manner in which the periodic RNA timer is stopped or where the timer resides; d) the state that the UE is in when the timer is stopped or e) the relation (i.e., any intervening steps performed) between the determination of the UE being in the process of sending small data packets and the RNA timer stopping. As such, the Office submits that the claim is not limited to stopping the timer while the UE is still in an inactive state. Rather, the claim appears to recite a cause (determining that the UE is sending packets in an inactive state) and effect (stopping the periodic RNA timer) without any further detail.
Turning to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant first states, on page 15 of the response:
“The Applicant thinks that it is clear in paragraph 0288 that the UE maintains one UE RNA update timer; and when the UE make an RRC connection, the gNB configures one UE RNA update timer for the UE (restarting the UE RNA update timer). In Fig. 25 and Fig. 26, gNB configures the UE RNA update timer for the UE through the RRC message; and indicates the UE to transition from the RRC connected state to the RRC inactive state through state transition. This means that the UE is in the RRC inactive state. Lines 1-2 of paragraph 288 of Park shows that the UE is in the RRC inactive state and the UE RNA update timer expires, the UE performs the RNA update procedure. Lines 3-4 of paragraph 288 shows that when the UE performs the RNA update procedure, the UE needs to make the RRC connection.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. As noted above, the state of the UE when the RNA update procedure occurs (i.e., stopping the timer) is not claimed. The claimed “inactive state” is solely tied to a determination that small packets are being transmitted. As clearly described in paragraphs 0288 and 0290, the UE can initiate an RNA update procedure while in an inactive state (0288), where an RNA update timer is starting in response to transmitting/receiving one or more packets to/from the wireless device (0290). Further, the base station may stop the network RNA update timer in response to this communication (0290). As such, Park clearly discloses both a determination that the UE “is in a process of sending small data packets in an inactive mode” and “stopping a timer” absent further limitation in the claim language.
Applicant further states the following on page 16 of the response:
“The Applicant thinks that based on the above contents of Park, it is clear that when the UE RAN notification area update timer is maintained by the UE, and the gNB RAN notification area update timer is maintained by the gNB. The expiration of the gNB RAN notification area update timer will not cause the UE in the RRC inactive state to perform RAN notification area update, and vice versa. The alternative A of claim 10 is performed by the network device. The gNB in Park will not stop the UE RAN notification area update timer or the gNB RAN notification area update timer, when the UE is in the RRC inactive state.
Additionally, the alternative A requires "UE is in a process of sending small data packets in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) inactive state". However, the UE in Park which is in the RRCinactive state only sends the RAN notification area update message to gNB, without sending small data packets in the RAN notification area request message. Based on these, the Applicant thinks that the alternative A is not disclosed by Park.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. As noted above, the claim language is silent as to where the timer resides. Therefore, Park’s disclosure, where the base station may stop the network RNA update timer in response to this communication (0290), reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as currently drafted. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 10-12 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
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 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 1, 3, 5-9, 13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication US 2024/0014979), hereinafter Lei, in view of Ohlsson et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20210385727), hereinafter Ohlsson.
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).
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 signaling and radio resource loading, as well as preserve device power consumption (paragraph 0006 of Ohlsson).
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 4 and 16, the combination of Lei and Ohlsson 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 further combine Lei and Ohlsson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce unnecessary control signaling and radio resource loading, as well as preserve device power consumption (paragraph 0006 of Ohlsson).
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 the combination of Lei / Ohlsson renders these claims obvious.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230276520) discloses stopping an RNA timer upon SDT procedure initiation (paragraph 0141).
Agiwal (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20240155725) discloses the UE stopping T380 during the SDT procedure (paragraph 0241).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights