CTFR 18/272,471 CTFR 89309 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 5, 21, and 25 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo (US 2023/0156814 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0225354 A1) . Regarding claims 1 and 21, Mo discloses: a first device (fig.1 depicts a plurality of devices either of which may be considered a first device) comprising: at least one processor (fig.5 a processor element 510) ; and at least one memory (fig.5 element 509 depicts a memory) including computer program code (fig.5 element 509 comprises application program) ; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (fig.5 the combination of elements which communicate with one another over a communications bus) , cause the first device to: select, based on a mode selection configuration (par.[0034] generally describes a mode selection configuration, wherein a mode may be selected based on configured thresholds) , a small data transmission mode (par.[0034] describes a small data transmission mode) to be initiated from a plurality of small data transmission modes (par.[0034] describes at least two different small data transmission modes, wherein one is based on a grant-free configuration, and the other is based on performing a RACH) , wherein the mode selection configuration comprises a first data volume threshold for a first small data transmission mode of the plurality of small data transmission modes (par.[0034] describes the two small data transmission modes of a plurality of small data transmission modes as discussed above wherein each of the small data transmission modes may be considered a first small data transmission mode, and for sake of example, the grant free is considered a first SDT mode, and comprises a threshold) and a second data volume threshold for a second small data transmission mode of the plurality of small data transmission modes (par.[0034] which describes a second threshold for RACH based SDT, par.[0059]) ; and perform a small data transmission procedure with a second device according to the selected small data transmission mode (par.[0034] describes performing the requisite SDT based on the threshold) . While the disclosure of Mo teaches performing a detection of a threshold amount of data in order to determine which SDT procedure to perform, but may not explicitly disclose: the second data volume threshold higher than the first data volume threshold. In an analogous art, the disclosure of Wang teaches: the second data volume threshold higher than the first data volume threshold (par.[0006] which recites, in part, “Then, an RRC layer in the base station obtains the TBS threshold through internal interaction in the base station, and the RRC layer may send the TBS threshold to UE. If the RRC layer in the base station determines that a data volume of to-be-sent downlink data is not greater than the TBS threshold, early data transmission may be performed through MT-EDT. If the UE determines that a data volume of to-be-sent uplink data is not greater than the TBS threshold, early data transmission may be performed through MO-EDT or based on a PUR. The TBS threshold used for the MT-EDT may be different from the TBS threshold used for the MO-EDT or the PUR.”. As the thresholds are different, naturally, one threshold is higher than another threshold.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the SDT methods as discussed in Mo, with the SDT methods as discussed in Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because RACH based and PUR based SDT may support different TBS . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 5, 21, and 25 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2023/0040049 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0225354 A1) . Regarding claim(s) 1 and 21, Fu discloses: a first device (par.[0002] describes a terminal) comprising: at least one processor (fig.3 element 310) ; and at least one memory (fig.3 element 330) including computer program code (par.[0105] describes the memory with code stored thereon) ; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to: select, based on a mode selection configuration, a small data transmission mode to be initiated from a plurality of small data transmission modes (par.[0004] describes two different modes for small data transmission, one utilizing RRC signaling, and the other w/o RRC signalling.) , wherein the mode selection configuration (par.[0016] which recites, in part, “ a data transmission mode in transmission of small data can be selected by the terminal, and the terminal could select an appropriate mode to transmit data.”) comprises a first data volume threshold (par.[0065] which recites, in part, “an amount of data to be transmitted or a total amount of transmitted data is less than or equal to a first preset threshold “) for a first small data transmission mode of the plurality of small data transmission modes (par.[0081] which describes a configured-grant type1 for SDT) and a second data volume threshold (par.[0091 – 0092] which describes the second data volume threshold) for a second small data transmission mode of the plurality of small data transmission modes (par.[0077] which recites, in part, “specific random access channel (RACH) resource (e.g. specific 4-step RACH resource, or specific 2-step RACH resource)”) ; and perform a small data transmission procedure with a second device according to the selected small data transmission mode (par.[0106] describes the utilization of the first and/or second SDT mode based on conditions and criteria set above, once met, allows the UE to utilize one of the modes of transmission) . While the disclosure of Fu teaches performing a detection of a threshold amount of data in order to determine which SDT procedure to perform, but may not explicitly disclose: the second data volume threshold higher than the first data volume threshold. In an analogous art, the disclosure of Wang teaches: the second data volume threshold higher than the first data volume threshold (par.[0006] which recites, in part, “Then, an RRC layer in the base station obtains the TBS threshold through internal interaction in the base station, and the RRC layer may send the TBS threshold to UE. If the RRC layer in the base station determines that a data volume of to-be-sent downlink data is not greater than the TBS threshold, early data transmission may be performed through MT-EDT. If the UE determines that a data volume of to-be-sent uplink data is not greater than the TBS threshold, early data transmission may be performed through MO-EDT or based on a PUR. The TBS threshold used for the MT-EDT may be different from the TBS threshold used for the MO-EDT or the PUR.”. As the thresholds are different, naturally, one threshold is higher than another threshold.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the SDT methods as discussed in Fu, with the SDT methods as discussed in Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because RACH based and PUR based SDT may support different TBS. Regarding claim 5, Fu discloses: Wherein the mode selection configuration comprises a validity configuration indicating whether the first device is allowed to initiate any of the pluralty of small data transmission modes (par.[0007 – 0008] describes the condition for transmitting in an SDT first mode, or in a second SDT mode, par.[0012 and 0076]) wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to select a small data transmission mode to be initiated by: in accordance with the validity configuration indicating that the first device is allowed to initiate one of the plurality of small data transmission modes, determining that the small data transmission mode is to be initiated (par.[0012] the conditions as discussed in for determining whether or not the UE may perform the SDT in the first mode or the second mode, par.[0065 – 0075, and 0087-0098]). Regarding claim 25, Fu discloses: a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed on an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform the method of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 1 and 21 above in view of the memory with code stored thereon) . Regarding claim 27, Fu discloses: comparing a volume of data to be transmitted with the first and second data volume thresholds (fig.1 element 101 wherein the UE evaluates the first mode and second mode, which requires the first and second thresholds) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu and Wang as applied to independent claims 1 and 21 in view of Christofferson (US 2023/0371066 A1) . Regarding claim 2, the disclosure of Fu and Wang teaches the independent claims, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to: indicate the selection of the small data transmission mode to the second device. In an analogous art, the disclosure of Christofferson teaches: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to: indicate the selection of the small data transmission mode to the second device (par.[0091] which recites, in part, “The UE 10 transmits an access request to the radio network node 12 to perform data transmission of the first type of data transmission. The access request may indicate the type of data transmission such as SDT.”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Fu and Wang with the disclosure of Christofferson. The motivation/suggestion would have been to request access to the network. Regarding claims 3, Christofferson discloses: wherein at least two of the plurality of small data transmission modes define different numbers of data transmissions during a small data transmission procedure and/or different resource types used in a small data transmission procedure (par.[0006] references RP-200954, and table-1 describes configured grant type 1 resources, and/or RACH based SDT in either 2-steps or 4-steps for SDT. Par.[0007] describes preconfigured uplink resources. Par.[0009 - 0017] describes SDT with RRC message for RACH and configured grant based SDT, additional UL/DL SDT transmission without entering the RRC_CONNECTED state etc.. That is, the disclosure teaches configured grant/PUR and RACH based SDT which would use different resources as well as a single SDT uplink/downlink transmission or more data wherein a UE may transmit and/or receive additional UL/DL data without entering the RRC_CONNECTED state as part of the SDT procedure). Regarding claim 10, Christofferson discloses: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to indicate the selection of the small data transmission mode by: encoding indication information about the selection of the small data transmission mode into a message to be transmitted to the second device; and causing the message encoded with the indication information to be transmitted to the second device during the small data transmission procedure (par.[0091] describes the UE forwarding to the second device an access request for SDT, par.[0066]). Regarding claim 11, Christofferson discloses: transmitting, to the second device, a message for the small data transmission procedure based on at least one of: one of a plurality of available resources corresponding to the selected small data transmission mode, one of a plurality of resource types corresponding to the selected small data transmission mode, or one of a plurality of random access types corresponding to the selected small data transmission mode (par.[0091] describes the access request including a request for a first type of transmission, corresponds to resources, RACH types, and SDT modes, par.[0090]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 4 and 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm. 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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. JAMAAL HENSON Primary Examiner Art Unit 2411 /JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 2 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 3 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 4 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 5 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 6 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 7 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 8 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 10 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/272,471 Page 11 Art Unit: 2411
Prosecution Insights