DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R. §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claims 50, 51, 56, and 57 have been amended. Claims 50-61 are subject to examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 50-52 and 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Agiwal et al. (US 2023/0380003 A1, hereinafter “Agiwal”).
Regarding Claim 50, Agiwal teaches a method of a User Equipment (UE), the method comprising: initiating a Small Data Transmission (SDT) procedure (Agiwal: SDT procedure is initiated by UE, see paragraph [0200]); and
transmitting, to a network, a Dedicated Control Channel (DCCH) message to inform about an arrival of data mapped to a radio bearer not configured for the SDT procedure, in a case where the data mapped to the radio bearer not configured for the SDT procedure becomes available during the SDT procedure, wherein the DCCH message includes a resume cause for the arrival of the data mapped to the radio bearer not configured for the SDT procedure (Agiwal: While the SDT procedure is ongoing, if data becomes available for one or more DRBs for which SDT is not configured/allowed/enabled (or if data becomes available for one or more RBs for which SDT is not configured/enabled/allowed), UE may perform the following operation ... UE sends an indication to gNB (in other words inform the gNB) that data for non SDT DRB(s) (or non SDT RB(s)) is available ... Option 1: RRC message can include this indication ... The RRC message is sent by UE using DCCH logical channel, see paragraphs [0202], [0206]-[0208]; In an embodiment, the format of RRC message can be as follows: UEAssistanceInformation ... (includes) resumeCause, see paragraphs [0219]-[0221], table “UEAssistanceInformation message”).
Regarding Claim 51, Agiwal teaches the method according to claim 50, wherein the DCCH message is mapped to a signaling radio bearer, wherein the signaling radio bearer is Signaling Radio Bearer 1 (SRB1) (Agiwal: The RRC message is sent by UE using DCCH logical channel and signaling radio bearer SRB1, see paragraph [0208]).
Regarding Claim 52, Agiwal teaches the method according to claim 50, wherein the DCCH message is a UE Assistance Information message (Agiwal: This RRC message can be a UE assistance information message, see paragraph [0214]).
Regarding Claim 56, Agiwal teaches a User Equipment (UE) comprising: a memory (Agiwal: a terminal includes ... a memory 930, see paragraph [0326]); and
a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to: initiate a Small Data Transmission (SDT) procedure (Agiwal: a terminal includes ... a controller 920 ... The controller 920 may refer to ... at least one processor ... the controller 920, and the memory 930 may also be electrically connected to or coupled with each other, see paragraph [0326]).
Regarding all other limitations of claim 56, the limitations are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 50, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 57-58, the limitations of the claims are substantially the same as the limitations of claims 51-52, and claims 57-58 are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 55 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shih et al. (US 2021/0211994 A1, hereinafter “Shih”).
Regarding Claim 55, Shih teaches a method of a User Equipment (UE), the method comprising: initiating a Small Data Transmission (SDT) procedure (Shih: the UE may trigger a Power Headroom Report (PHR) in response to initiating a small data transmission procedure, see paragraph [0384]);
triggering a Power Headroom Report (PHR) procedure (Shih: the UE may trigger a Power Headroom Report (PHR), see paragraph [0384]); and
cancelling the PHR procedure, in a case where the SDT procedure is ongoing and an Uplink (UL) grant can accommodate all pending data available for transmission but is not sufficient to additionally accommodate a PHR Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) plus its header fields (Shih: the UE may cancel a triggered PHR if the first UL resource can accommodate the first pending data available for transmission (e.g., all pending data available for transmission) but is not sufficient to additionally accommodate the power headroom information, see paragraph [0407]; the power headroom information may be a PHR MAC CE, see paragraph [0442]).
Regarding Claim 61, Shih teaches a User Equipment (UE) comprising: a memory (Shih: in one exemplary embodiment of a UE, the device 300 includes a program code 312 stored in the memory 310, see paragraph [0496]); and
a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to: initiate a Small Data Transmission (SDT) procedure (Shih: The CPU 308 could execute program code 312 to enable the UE to initiate a small data transmission procedure, see paragraph [0496]).
Regarding all other limitations of claim 61, the limitations are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 55, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 53-54 and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal in view of Shih.
Regarding Claim 53, Agiwal teaches the method according to claim 50, but does not explicitly teach triggering a Power Headroom Report (PHR) procedure.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shih teaches triggering a Power Headroom Report (PHR) procedure (Shih: the UE may trigger a Power Headroom Report (PHR) in response to initiating a small data transmission procedure, see paragraph [0384]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Agiwal to include the features as taught by Shih above in order to provide support for power aware packet scheduling (Shih: see paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Claim 54, Agiwal-Shih teaches the method according to claim 53.
Shih further teaches cancelling the PHR procedure, in a case where the SDT procedure is ongoing and an Uplink (UL) grant can accommodate all pending data available for transmission but is not sufficient to additionally accommodate a PHR Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) plus its header fields (Shih: the UE may cancel a triggered PHR if the first UL resource can accommodate the first pending data available for transmission (e.g., all pending data available for transmission) but is not sufficient to additionally accommodate the power headroom information, see paragraph [0407]; the power headroom information may be a PHR MAC CE, see paragraph [0442]).
The rationale and motivation for adding the teaching of Shih is the same as the rationale and motivation for Claim 53.
Regarding Claims 59-60, the limitations of the claims are substantially the same as the limitations of claims 53-54, and claims 59-60 are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al. (US 2025/0071809 A1) teaches a UE initiating a SDT procedure and transmitting an RRC message to a network to inform about an arrival of non-SDT data when non-SDT data becomes available during the SDT procedure (see paragraph [0146]). Turtinen et al. (US 2024/0090063 A1) teaches if an SDT procedure is ongoing, and there is non-SDT data to be transmitted, the UE may transmit a RRC message (e.g. UE assistance information message) via SRB1 (see paragraph [0104]).
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 PHILLIP J EGAN KEARNS whose telephone number is 571-272-4869. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-6 EST.
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, NOEL BEHARRY can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416