DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on August 29, 2023, having claims 1-20 (claims 18-20 are new claims).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19-20 are method claims that are improperly dependent upon apparatus claim 15. The preamble of the claims or their dependency must be amended to render the claims definite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2023/0030443 A1).
For claims 1 and 14, Chen discloses a user equipment (Fig 3, node 300 may be a UE) comprising: at least one processor (Fig 3, processor 326); and at least one non-transitory memory (Fig 3, memory 328) storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the user equipment to perform:
obtaining a status of at least one control element regarding allowability of small data transmission by the user equipment ([0081] the UE receives an indication from the BS indicating a configured grant which allows small data transmission in RRC inactive state, wherein the configuration comprises a TA timer (a control element) and the data radio bearer(s) allowed to be used for the small data transmission);
examining the status to determine whether small data transmission by the user equipment is prohibited or allowed in an inactive state of the user equipment ([0081] the UE determines whether the TA timer is valid (i.e., not expired) and whether the size of data volume is less than or equal to a threshold to determine whether the configured grant is valid for the small data transmission);
causing, based on the determination, the user equipment to perform either:
initiating a small data transmission procedure in the inactive state of the user equipment when the status indicates that initiation of the small data transmission is not prohibited ([0081] step 206, when the UE determines that the TA timer is valid and the small data volume is less than or equal to a threshold, the UE initiates the small data transmission using the configured grant); or
prohibiting initiation of the small data transmission procedure (page 12, [0081], if the TA timer is not valid or the configured grant is not valid, the UE transmits the data using a regular RA procedure (not a CG-SDT procedure)).
For claims 2, 16, and 18, Chen discloses at least one control element comprising one or more of the following: a prohibit timer ([0081] TA timer); a small data transmission counter.
For claims 3 and 19, Chen discloses that initiation of the small data transmission is not prohibited when the prohibit timer is not running (page 12, [0081], if the TA timer is not valid (not running) or the configured grant is not valid, the UE transmits the data using a regular RA procedure (not a CG-SDT procedure)).
For claim 8, Chen discloses starting the prohibit timer upon performing the small data transmission or when receiving an RRC release message terminating the small data transmission procedure ([0081] the TA timer is configured and started when the UE receives an RRC release message from the BS).
For claim 12, Chen discloses initiating a configured grant based small data transmission or random access based small data transmission when the examining reveals that the status of any of the at least one control element is not indicating that initiation of small data transmission by the user equipment is prohibited ([0081] the UE initiates a CG-SDT procedure when the TA timer is valid, the configured grant is valid, and the small data volume is less than or equal to a threshold; OR (page 12, [0081]) the UE initiates an RA (random access) procedure when the TA timer is not valid, the configured grant is neither received nor valid, and the small data volume is greater than a threshold).
For claims 15 and 17, Chen discloses a network element (Fig 3, node 300 may be a BS which is a network element) comprising: at least one processor (Fig 1, processor 326); and at least one non-transitory memory (Fig 3, memory 328) storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the user equipment to perform:
determining that a user equipment is to implement at least one control element for determining by the user equipment whether transmission of a message using a small data transmission procedure in an inactive state of the user equipment is prohibited and providing the user equipment indication of the usage of the at least one control element ([0081] the UE receives an indication from the BS indicating a configured grant which allows small data transmission in RRC inactive state, wherein the configuration comprises a TA timer (a control element) and the data radio bearer(s) allowed to be used for the small data transmission).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0030443 A1) in view of Shi et al. (US 2024/0080785 A1).
For claim 9, Chen does not expressly disclose stopping the prohibit timer or setting the small data transmission counter to an initial value when at least one of a certain amount of time elapses, cell selection or cell reselection occurs, or when an RRC connection is established or resumed.
Shi, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches stopping the prohibit timer or setting the small data transmission counter to an initial value when at least one of a certain amount of time elapses, cell selection or cell reselection occurs, or when an RRC connection is established or resumed ([0120] the UE stops a first timer for SDT upon receiving an RRC resume message from the network). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the timer in the communication network of Chen to stop when an RRC resume message is received based on the teachings of Shi at the time of the invention.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0030443 A1) in view of Yue et al. (US 2023/0180340 A1).
For claim 13, Chen does not expressly disclose an access stratum layer of a protocol stack of the user equipment informing a non-access stratum layer of the protocol stack that initiation of the small data transmission is allowed.
Yue, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an access stratum layer of a protocol stack of the user equipment informing a non-access stratum layer of the protocol stack that initiation of the small data transmission is allowed ([0046] the AS layer of the UE indicates to the NAS layer of the UE the data radio bearer(s) (DRB) and their corresponding logical channels (LCHs) that are allowed for small data transmission). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the implement the SDT admission procedure of Yue in the communication network of Chen at the time of the invention to indicate the allowance of the SDT procedure.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4-7, 10-11 and 20 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
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471