DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/12/2026. Claims 1-13 and 16-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
3. 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 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.
Claims 14-15 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the UE of claim 1 must receive the configured grant before, and not during, the random access procedure. For at least this reason, Logothetis is
Inapposite.
Examiner respectively disagrees. Logothetis teaches wherein the user device is configured, when in an unconnected state (inactive state) with respect to the base station, to participate in a random access procedure to seek to establish a connected state with respect to the base station, wherein the user device is configured to listen for and receive system information periodically broadcast on a physical broadcast channel by the base station, and in the random access procedure, the user device is configured to: transmit a random access preamble in accordance with parameters specified in the system information; listen for and receive a random access response transmitted by the base station in response to the random access preamble, wherein the random access
response indicates an uplink grant allocated to the user device, the uplink grant comprising first uplink resource allocated to the user device for a connection request message (see pargraph 55-59 wherein the UE is still in unconnected state). Still in unconnected state UE transmit the connection request message via the first uplink resource which was allocated when the UE was still in unconnected state (see paragraph 60). With regard to the payload and identifier of the UE obtained by the UE prior to performing the random access procedure, it is clear whether UE is still in unconnected (inactive) state or not. However, Logothetis teaches both the payload and the identifier (Fig. 6D, paragraphs 94-95, 140, claims 8-9 “payload”, Fig. 5 “RA-RNTI, TC-RNTI”-it should be noticed the above parameters are all configurable as they are in claim 1 (design requirements)),
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 16-18 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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because they depend on cancelled claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
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 1–11 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Logothetis et al. (US 2023/0095642 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0246420A1).
Regarding claim 1, Logothetis teaches a method in a user equipment (UE)
for communicating with a base station, the method comprising: receiving, by the UE from the base station (Logothetis [0087] Logothetis teaches that the UE may receive an uplink grant from the base station in response to a random-access preamble, which allows the UE to transmit a connection request message without using a statically reserved uplink control channel. This configuration supports more efficient reuse of uplink resources);
transmitting, when the UE is in the inactive state, a message to the base station using the configured grant; (Logothetis [0087] Logothetis describes the UE transmitting acknowledgment or request messages using the uplink resources allocated by the earlier grant (i.e. configured grant) prior to (i.e. inactive state) establishing a full connection);
Thus, Logothetis does not teach detecting, within a predetermined interval after transmitting the message, uplink data addressed to the base station; and in response to the detecting, performing, a random-access procedure with the base station, including transmitting a payload with (i) an indication of the uplink data.
Similar to Logothetis, Park teaches detecting, within a predetermined interval after transmitting the message, uplink data addressed to the base station; (Park [0142]) Park teaches that after transmitting Msg1, the UE begins monitoring for Msg2 within a defined time window, such as the ra-ResponseWindow or bfr-ResponseWindow, which is triggered a fixed interval after Msg1 transmission ends (Park [0142]). This monitoring period represents the claimed predetermined interval, and Msg2 contains base station-provided information such as timing advance or UL grant—i.e., uplink data addressed to the UE
and in response to the detecting, performing, a random-access procedure with the base station, (Park [0143]– [0145] Park teaches that upon successfully detecting Msg2, the UE transmits Msg3 (1240) and receives Contention Resolution (1250) from the base station, completing the random-access procedure. These steps occur only after detection of the response, demonstrating that the UE performs the random-access procedure in direct response to the detected uplink message (Park [0143]).
including transmitting a payload with (i) an indication of the uplink data (Park [0144]) Park teaches that Msg3 includes transmission of one or more transport blocks based on an uplink grant, which may represent buffered data or contextual signaling content. This satisfies the claimed payload requirement, as it includes data indicative of the UE’s uplink transmission intent or content, tied to the configured grant (Park [0144]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the configured grant-based transmission technique of Logothetis with the post-transmission detection and structured random-access procedure of Park to improve reliability and coordination in uplink access initiation. Doing so would represent a predictable improvement by enabling a UE in the inactive state to not only transmit using pre-allocated resources (as in Logothetis), but also to engage in a follow-up random access sequence (as in Park) that ensures proper synchronization, acknowledgement, and contention resolution—ultimately supporting more robust and efficient uplink communication.
Regarding claim 2, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 1,
further comprising receiving, after transmitting the message and prior to performing the random-access procedure, the identifier from the base station. (Logothetis [0005]– [0009]; [0087]). Logothetis teaches that the UE transmits a message using configured uplink resources and later performs a random-access procedure comprising transmission of a preamble, reception of a random-access response with an uplink grant, transmission of a connection request, and reception of a contention resolution message, with the base station optionally defining acknowledgment signaling via system information.
However, Logothetis does not teach that the identifier used by the UE during the random-access procedure is explicitly received from the base station after transmitting the initial message and prior to the random-access procedure. (Park [0106]– [0107]; [0155]; Fig. 15). Park teaches that the UE may be assigned an identifier (e.g., C-RNTI or CS-RNTI) by the base station while in the RRC_INACTIVE state, and that the identifier may be used for configured scheduling and for identification during random-access fallback procedures. Park further discloses that the identifier may be preassigned or dynamically delivered to the UE, enabling the UE to use it in uplink signaling even before a new RRC connection is established.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’ teaching of configured-grant-based uplink transmission with Park’s teaching of assigning and using a UE-specific identifier after transmission and before initiating a random-access procedure, to enable efficient fallback handling and consistent UE identification across communication states. This represents a predictable improvement that reduces latency, minimizes signaling overhead, and supports mobility scenarios in line with standard RRC_INACTIVE protocol behavior.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the identifier is a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI). (Park [0106]– [0107] Park teaches that the identifier is a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI), which is obtained by the UE and used to facilitate signaling and uplink transmissions during RRC inactive state, including for configured grants and random-access procedures.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Park’s teaching of using a C-RNTI to facilitate signaling and uplink transmissions during the inactive state with Logothetis’ configured grant procedure to enable more efficient identification and coordination of UEs during random-access operations.
Regarding claim 4, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 1,
further comprising: receiving from the base station prior to performing the random-access procedure, the identifier, the identifier dedicated for use in the inactive state. (Logothetis [0005]– [0009], [0087]) Logothetis teaches that the UE transmits a message using a configured uplink grant and subsequently performs a random-access procedure but does not disclose that the UE receives a dedicated identifier from the base station prior to the procedure for use in the inactive state.
However, Logothetis does not teach that the identifier is received from the base station prior to the random-access procedure and that the identifier is dedicated for use in the inactive state. (Park [0103]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that a UE operating in the RRC_INACTIVE state may be assigned a dedicated identifier (e.g., C-RNTI or CS-RNTI) by the base station. Park explains that this identifier is configured specifically for use during the inactive state to support configured scheduling (CS) grants, allowing uplink communication without requiring re-establishment of the RRC connection. Park further teaches that this identifier may be delivered to the UE prior to random access and is intended for continued use during transitions such as fallback to random-access procedures.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’ method of grant-based uplink signaling and random-access procedure with Park’s teaching of delivering a dedicated identifier prior to random access in the inactive state, to ensure seamless UE identification and scheduling continuity. This combination provides a predictable improvement in communication reliability and reduces signaling overhead, consistent with the goals of 5G RRC_INACTIVE operation.
Regarding claim 5, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 1,wherein the identifier corresponds to the message the UE transmitted in accordance with the configured grant. (Logothetis [0007]– [0009], [0087]) Logothetis teaches that the UE transmits a message using an uplink grant previously allocated by the base station and subsequently performs a random-access procedure. The acknowledgment signal transmitted by the UE during contention resolution is based on the same earlier grant, thereby linking the identifier to the message transmitted in accordance with that configured grant.
However, Logothetis does not teach that the identifier explicitly corresponds to the earlier message—i.e., it does not describe how the identifier is assigned or maintained to reference a specific prior configured-grant transmission. (Park [0106]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that a UE operating in the RRC_INACTIVE state may be assigned a dedicated identifier (e.g., C-RNTI or CS-RNTI) by the base station. Park explains that this identifier is used consistently for configured-grant transmissions and random-access fallback, allowing the base station to associate subsequent uplink data with prior transmissions for continuity and identification purposes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’s teaching of uplink transmissions using configured grants with Park’s teaching of maintaining a dedicated identifier linked to prior transmissions, to enable explicit message-to-identifier association. This combination provides a predictable improvement by enhancing uplink traceability, reducing signaling ambiguity, and ensuring consistent UE identification across configured and random-access operations.
Regarding claim 6, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 5,wherein the payload includes a UE contention resolution identity including the message. (Logothetis [0009], [0087]) Logothetis teaches that the UE transmits a message using a configured uplink grant and later engages in a contention resolution procedure. During this process, the UE transmits an acknowledgment signal using the same resources granted earlier, and this transmission acts as a UE contention resolution identity by linking back to the initial message.
However, Logothetis does not teach that the UE contention resolution identity explicitly includes the message or a replica thereof. (Park [0103]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that the UE may embed a contention resolution identity (e.g., MAC PDU or a C-RNTI) within the payload, which corresponds to the original message transmitted via configured scheduling (CS) grants. Park explains that this identity serves to resolve contention by allowing the base station to identify the UE based on the earlier transmission and to verify the match between uplink messages during the fallback procedure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’s contention resolution signaling with Park’s teaching of embedding the original message or a derived identifier into the payload as a contention resolution identity. This combination enables efficient identification and collision resolution in RRC_INACTIVE state transitions, representing a predictable improvement in uplink reliability and control signaling clarity.
Regarding 7, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 5,
wherein the payload includes a UE contention resolution identity including a common control channel (CCCH) service data unit (SDU) of the message. (Logothetis [0008]– [0009], [0087]) Logothetis teaches that the UE transmits a connection request message over a configured uplink grant and participates in a contention resolution process. The initial message transmitted using the configured grant is a connection request, which corresponds to a CCCH SDU, and the acknowledgment signal used during contention resolution implicitly references this message by using the same uplink resource and transmission context.
However, Logothetis does not teach that the contention resolution identity explicitly includes a CCCH SDU of the message. (Park [0053]– [0054], [0106]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that in the RRC_INACTIVE state, the UE may transmit MAC PDUs that contain MAC sub headers and logical channel identifiers (LCIDs), which are used to identify control channel messages like CCCH SDUs. Park further explains that contention resolution can be achieved by embedding such identifiers or control messages within the payload to ensure the base station recognizes the UE based on a previously transmitted CCCH message.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’s contention resolution process with Park’s teaching of explicitly embedding a CCCH SDU within the payload as part of the UE’s contention resolution identity. This combination would provide a predictable improvement by enabling robust UE identification, reducing signaling ambiguity, and ensuring message continuity during fallback to random-access procedures in the inactive state.
Regarding claim 8, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 1,wherein detecting the uplink data includes: starting a timer in response to transmitting the message; and detecting the uplink data while the timer is running. (Logothetis [0005]– [0009], [0087]) Logothetis describes that after the UE transmits a message using the configured uplink grant, it expects a contention resolution message from the base station within a certain time window. This implies a timing mechanism—such as a contention resolution timer—is started upon message transmission and governs the UE’s expectation and monitoring behavior during the random-access process.
However, Logothetis does not explicitly teach that the UE starts a timer in response to transmitting the message and detects uplink data while the timer is running. (Park [0105]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that the UE in the RRC_INACTIVE state may employ timers in conjunction with configured grant transmissions and fallback random-access procedures. Park discloses that the UE maintains timers for uplink data detection and transmission management, such that timing control is applied after the UE sends the configured grant-based message and during monitoring for uplink acknowledgment or resolution.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’s message-based triggering with Park’s explicit use of timers for managing uplink detection and fallback, to enable reliable contention resolution timing and efficient resource usage. This combination reflects a predictable design refinement that ensures timely uplink coordination and avoids indefinite UE waiting states.
Regarding claim 9, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 1,wherein the indication of the uplink data includes a status of a data buffer. (Logothetis [0008]– [0010], [0087]) Logothetis teaches that the UE transmits a connection request message using the configured uplink grant and participates in a contention resolution process. The message includes information that enables the base station to determine that the UE has data to transmit, which reflects the status of the UE’s data buffer—i.e., buffered uplink data waiting for transmission. This supports efficient grant allocation and uplink scheduling.
However, Logothetis does not explicitly teach that the indication includes the status of a data buffer within the message. (Park [0053]– [0054], [0103]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that the UE, particularly in RRC_INACTIVE state, may transmit MAC PDUs with MAC sub headers that explicitly report buffer status. These buffer status reports (BSRs) are used by the base station to evaluate uplink scheduling needs and correspond directly to an “indication” of uplink data based on the actual buffer occupancy at the UE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’s grant-based signaling and message structure with Park’s explicit use of buffer status indicators, to improve uplink scheduling efficiency and ensure that the base station can respond appropriately to the UE’s data transmission needs. This combination would represent a predictable enhancement supporting low-latency and resource-efficient communication.
Regarding claim 10, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 1,wherein performing the random-access procedure includes receiving a temporary cell radio network temporary identifier (TC-RNTI) in a second message of the random-access procedure, and the method further comprises using the TC-RNTI as a C-RNTI after the random-access procedure. (Logothetis [0006]– [0009], [0087]) Logothetis describes that during the random-access procedure, the base station sends a random-access response (RAR) message—typically the second message in the four-step procedure—which contains an uplink grant and a temporary identifier (TC-RNTI). This identifier allows the UE to continue the procedure and is later used for contention resolution and connection establishment, effectively becoming the UE’s C-RNTI upon successful completion of the procedure.
Thus, Logothetis teaches that the TC-RNTI is received in the second message (i.e., the RAR), and that it is used as the UE’s permanent C-RNTI following successful contention resolution and transition to a connected state.
Regarding claim 11, Logothetis teaches a user equipment (UE),
including processing hardware and configured to: receive, by the UE from a base station, a configured grant for the UE to utilize when operating in an inactive state associated with a protocol for controlling radio resources; (Logothetis [0087]) Logothetis teaches that the UE may receive an uplink grant from the base station in response to a random-access preamble, which allows the UE to transmit a connection request message without using a statically reserved uplink control channel. This configuration supports more efficient reuse of uplink resources.
transmit, when the UE is in the inactive state, a message to the base station using the configured grant; (Logothetis [0087]) Logothetis describes the UE transmitting acknowledgment or request messages using the uplink resources allocated by the earlier grant (i.e. configured grant) prior to (i.e. inactive state) establishing a full connection.
Thus, Logothetis does not teach detecting, within a predetermined interval after transmitting the message, uplink data addressed to the base station; and in response to the detecting, performing, a random-access procedure with the base station, including transmitting a payload with (i) an indication of the uplink data.
Similar to Logothetis, Park teaches detecting, within a predetermined interval after transmitting the message, uplink data addressed to the base station; (Park [0142]) Park teaches that after transmitting Msg1, the UE begins monitoring for Msg2 within a defined time window, such as the ra-ResponseWindow or bfr-ResponseWindow, which is triggered a fixed interval after Msg1 transmission ends (Park [0142]). This monitoring period represents the claimed predetermined interval, and Msg2 contains base station-provided information such as timing advance or UL grant—i.e., uplink data addressed to the UE
and in response to the detecting, performing, a random-access procedure with the base station, (Park [0143]– [0145]) Park teaches that upon successfully detecting Msg2, the UE transmits Msg3 (1240) and receives Contention Resolution (1250) from the base station, completing the random-access procedure. These steps occur only after detection of the response, demonstrating that the UE performs the random-access procedure in direct response to the detected uplink message (Park [0143]).
including transmitting a payload with (i) an indication of the uplink data (Park [0144]) Park teaches that Msg3 includes transmission of one or more transport blocks based on an uplink grant, which may represent buffered data or contextual signaling content. This satisfies the claimed payload requirement, as it includes data indicative of the UE’s uplink transmission intent or content, tied to the configured grant (Park [0144]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the configured grant-based transmission technique of Logothetis with the post-transmission detection and structured random-access procedure of Park to improve reliability and coordination in uplink access initiation. Doing so would represent a predictable improvement by enabling a UE in the inactive state to not only transmit using pre-allocated resources (as in Logothetis), but also to engage in a follow-up random access sequence (as in Park) that ensures proper synchronization, acknowledgement, and contention resolution—ultimately supporting more robust and efficient uplink communication
Regarding claim 20, Logothetis teaches the UE of claim 11,
further configured to: receive, after transmitting the message and prior to performing the random-access procedure, the identifier from the base station. (Logothetis [0005]– [0009], [0087]) Logothetis discloses that the UE transmits a message using a configured uplink grant and later engages in a random-access procedure, during which an identifier is used to facilitate contention resolution. However, Logothetis does not explicitly teach that the UE receives an identifier from the base station after the configured grant transmission and before initiating the random-access procedure.
However, Logothetis does not teach that the identifier is received after transmitting the message and prior to the random-access procedure, nor does it clarify that the identifier is dedicated for such use in this time window. (Park [0103]– [0107], [0155], Fig. 15). Park teaches that a UE in RRC_INACTIVE may be pre-assigned a dedicated identifier, such as a C-RNTI or CS-RNTI, which is transmitted by the base station prior to the UE initiating the random-access procedure, and that this identifier is used in signaling continuity and contention resolution.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’ method of grant-based uplink communication with Park’s teaching of delivering a dedicated identifier before random access in the inactive state to ensure seamless UE identification and maintain uplink session continuity. This combination provides a predictable improvement in signaling reliability and latency reduction aligned with 5G NR goals.
Regarding claim 21, Logothetis teaches the UE of claim 11,
further configured to: receive from the base station prior to performing the random-access procedure, the identifier, the identifier dedicated for use in the inactive state. (Logothetis [0005]– [0009], [0087]) Logothetis describes a UE transmitting a message via a configured grant and then performing a random-access procedure, during which the base station may transmit an identifier to the UE. However, Logothetis does not explicitly teach that the identifier is transmitted prior to the random-access procedure or that it is specifically dedicated for use while the UE is in the inactive state.
However, Logothetis does not teach that the identifier is received from the base station prior to performing the random-access procedure, nor that the identifier is specifically dedicated for use in the inactive state. (Park [0103]– [0107], [0155], Fig. 15). Park teaches that a UE operating in the RRC_INACTIVE state may be provided with a dedicated identifier (e.g., C-RNTI or CS-RNTI) by the base station, which is delivered prior to random access and configured for continued use to enable uplink transmissions without RRC re-establishment.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Park’s teaching of delivering a preconfigured, dedicated identifier into Logothetis’ system, ensuring that the UE is identifiable during inactive-state procedures such as random access. This combination offers a predictable improvement in uplink continuity and protocol efficiency, in line with 5G NR objectives for reducing signaling overhead and enabling low-latency connectivity.
7. Claims 12-13 and 16–21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Logothetis et al. (US 2023/0095642 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0246420A1) further in view of Godin et al. (US 2022/0117006 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 12, a method in a base station for communicating with a user equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting, by the base station to the UE, a configured grant for the UE to utilize when operating in an inactive state associated with a protocol for controlling radio resources (see paragraph 87 “the UE may receive an uplink grant from the base station in response to a random-access preamble, which allows the UE to transmit a connection request message without using a statically reserved uplink control channel. This configuration supports more efficient reuse of uplink resources”);
receiving, from the UE, a transmission in accordance with the configured grant (paragraphs 5-9, 87 “the base station receives a transmission from the UE in accordance with a configured grant and subsequently provides an identifier to the UE for continued communication, though it does not specify that the identifier is a C-RNTI”);
Logothetis does not explicitly teach the response to receiving the transmission, transmitting, to the UE, an identifier for the UE to utilize to communicate with the base station.
Logothetis, Park teaches that after a UE sends a transmission (e.g., Msg3) in accordance with a configured grant, the base station may transmit an identifier (e.g., C-RNTI) to the UE for continued communication. Park further teaches that the C-RNTI may be included in DCI sent via PDCCH, which enables the UE to recognize downlink assignments and uplink grants, thereby facilitating ongoing access and scheduling for communication with the base station (Park [0102], [0104]).
One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Park’s use of C-RNTI transmission following UE uplink activity to enhance UE identification and synchronization for efficient communication continuation in systems utilizing configured grants like those in Logothetis.
Logothetis in view of Park does not explicitly teach receiving, from the UE, a payload during a random access procedure with UE, the payload including the identifier.
However, Godin teaches sending the small data transmission packet to a distributed unit entity, wherein the packet comprises the payload and the inactive radio network temporary identifier and optionally comprises a radio resource control message for the user equipment (Godin: paragraph 104). In addition, Godin teaches The third mechanism may include a configured grant-based SDT where a UE in an RRC connected state can receive a configured grant (CG) type1 configuration that indicates the specific pre-configured PUSCH resources to be used for an uplink (UL) data transmission. This CG configuration can also be used when the UE is in an RRC inactive state as long as the timing alignment is valid (Godin: paragraph 43).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Godin in the combined random access procedure of Park and Logothetis in order to enable small data transmission (SDT) in uplink direction in a 5G NR system (Godin: paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 13, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 12,
wherein the identifier is used by the UE to communicate with the base station after transmission via a configured grant (Logothetis [0005]– [0009], [0087]). Logothetis teaches that the base station receives a transmission from the UE in accordance with a configured grant and subsequently provides an identifier to the UE for continued communication, though it does not specify that the identifier is a C-RNTI.
However, Logothetis does not expressly state that the identifier is a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI), nor does it identify the type or scope of the identifier used after the random-access procedure. (Park [0106]– [0107], [0155]). Park teaches that the base station provides the UE with a dedicated identifier such as a C-RNTI or CS-RNTI, which is configured for use during the RRC_INACTIVE state to support uplink communication without reestablishing the RRC connection.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a C-RNTI, as taught by Park, as the identifier in Logothetis’ method to ensure standardized and efficient UE identification and communication continuity in accordance with 5G NR practices. This substitution represents a predictable enhancement consistent with conventional RRC and MAC-layer operations in current cellular systems.
Regarding claim 14, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 12 or 13,
further comprising receiving, from the UE, a payload during a random-access procedure with the UE. (Logothetis [0005]– [0009]) Logothetis explains that during the random-access procedure, the UE transmits a connection-request message via uplink resources allocated by the base station in response to a random-access preamble, and that the base station receives this transmission as part of the contention-resolution exchange.
However, Logothetis does not disclose that the payload received from the UE explicitly includes the identifier, nor that the identifier is transmitted within the same message during the random-access procedure. (Park [0053]– [0054], [0106]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that the UE transmits MAC PDUs that include control information such as logical-channel identifiers (LCIDs) or dedicated identifiers (e.g., C-RNTI or CS-RNTI) embedded within the payload. Park further discloses that these identifiers are used to identify the UE during contention resolution and to maintain signaling continuity in the RRC_INACTIVE state.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’ teaching of receiving a payload during a random-access procedure with Park’s teaching of embedding the UE’s identifier within that payload. This combination would enable the base station to immediately associate the received transmission with a specific UE context, thereby improving RRC resumption efficiency and reducing signaling overhead representing a predictable improvement consistent with 5G NR design principles.
Regarding claim 16, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 14,
wherein the payload includes a UE contention resolution identity. (Logothetis [0007]– [0009]) Logothetis describes a random-access procedure where the UE transmits a connection request message, and in response, the base station sends a contention resolution message. Logothetis also notes that an acknowledgement signal may be transmitted using previously granted uplink resources during contention resolution. This implies that UE identification occurs within the payload, supporting the concept of a contention resolution identity.
However, Logothetis does not disclose that the UE contention resolution identity includes a common control channel (CCCH) service data unit (SDU) of the transmission. (Park [0107], [0155], Fig. 15) Park teaches that during random access in the RRC_INACTIVE state, the UE may transmit a MAC PDU containing CCCH data (e.g., an RRC Resume Request) that includes UE-specific identification information such as the C-RNTI or contention resolution identity. Park explicitly associates the CCCH SDU with resumption and fallback procedures and describes its use for resolving contention during the RA process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’ teaching of a contention resolution identity with Park’s teaching of embedding a CCCH SDU within the random-access message. This combination improves the robustness of contention resolution by leveraging standardized RRC resume procedures and provides a predictable improvement in reconnection efficiency and signaling continuity under 5G RRC_INACTIVE operation.
Regarding claim 17, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 14,
further comprising receiving, during the random-access procedure and along with the payload, an indication of uplink data. (Logothetis [0006]– [0009]) Logothetis discloses that during a random-access procedure, the UE transmits a connection request message in response to an uplink grant, and this message initiates the contention resolution process. The uplink transmission implies the UE has data to send, and the process is designed to recover that data path efficiently, suggesting the presence of uplink data.
However, Logothetis does not explicitly teach that the payload includes an indication of uplink data during the random-access procedure. (Park [0106]– [0107], [0155], Fig. 15) Park teaches that in the RRC_INACTIVE state, the UE can indicate the presence of uplink data as part of the RRC Resume Request message, which may be embedded in the random-access payload. This indication is used by the base station to quickly resume or allocate resources, showing that the UE is attempting to transmit pending data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’ structured random-access messaging with Park’s teaching of explicitly including an indication of uplink data in the payload. This combination would provide a predictable improvement by enabling faster scheduling decisions and more efficient resource allocation during random access recovery in 5G RRC_INACTIVE operation.
Regarding claim 18, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 17,
wherein the indication of uplink data includes a status of a data buffer at the UE. (Logothetis [0006]– [0009]) Logothetis discloses that the UE transmits a connection request message as part of a random-access procedure, implying the UE has data to send, though it does not specify whether the status of a data buffer is included.
However, Logothetis does not explicitly teach that the indication of uplink data includes the status of a data buffer at the UE. (Park [0106]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that when a UE in the RRC_INACTIVE state performs a random-access procedure, the payload (e.g., RRC Resume Request) may include a buffer status report (BSR) or a similar indication of pending uplink data. This status informs the base station of how much data is waiting in the UE’s buffer, enabling efficient resource scheduling and grant assignment.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Logothetis’ grant-based random-access method with Park’s teaching of including a buffer status in the uplink data indication. This would result in a predictable improvement by enabling the base station to prioritize and allocate uplink resources more efficiently, reducing latency and signaling overhead in 5G systems operating in the RRC_INACTIVE state.
Regarding claim 19, Logothetis teaches the method of claim 12,
wherein the identifier corresponds to the transmission from the UE in accordance with the configured grant. (Logothetis [0005]– [0009], [0087]) Logothetis discloses that the base station provides a configured grant to the UE and receives a transmission in response, followed by a contention resolution message and subsequent UE identification.
However, Logothetis does not explicitly teach that the identifier is linked or corresponds to the transmission from the UE made using the configured grant. (Park [0103]– [0107], [0155]; Fig. 15) Park teaches that in the RRC_INACTIVE state, the UE may transmit using a configured grant and include an identifier (e.g., C-RNTI) previously assigned by the base station. This identifier is retained and reused to associate future messages, including random access payloads, with earlier configured grant transmissions—ensuring continuity and proper UE identification.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Park’s teaching of reusing a persistent identifier that corresponds to a prior configured grant transmission into Logothetis’ method. This would ensure seamless association between prior transmissions and UE identity, resulting in predictable improvements in session continuity, uplink scheduling, and protocol efficiency in 5G RRC_INACTIVE operations.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-5PM.
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, JEFFREY RUTKOWSKI can be reached at (571)-270-1215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights