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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2021/083846 (filed 03/30/2021).
Objections
Claim 65 is objected to because of the following informalities, and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 65 line 1, the preamble “[t]he wireless device of claim 39” appears to be incorrect, since claim 39 is a method claim format. Please clarify whether it ought to be “[t]he wireless device of claim 59”. NOTE: for examining purposes, examiner currently interprets the preamble as “[t]he wireless device of claim 59” until clarification is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 52-53, and 61-62 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 52 line 4, "the PDSCH parameter" lacks antecedent basis. Is it supposed to be “the PDSCH configuration parameter”? Similar problem appears in claim 61.
Claim 53 line 4, the phrase "using selected CG SDT resource" is unclear and ambiguous as to whether it is referred to the “selecting a Configured Grant (CG) SDT resource” in line 2. If indeed so, the phrase should be changed to “using the selected CG SDT resource". Otherwise, clarification is requested. Similar problem appears in claim 62.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 39-40, 53, 55, 57-60, 62, 64, and 66-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 20220210798 A1, hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 39,
Tsai teaches a method for Small Data Transmission (SDT), performed by a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless network, the method comprising (in general, see fig. 9 and 10 along with many of their paragraphs starting at para. 211; see also sections disclosing fig. 1-2 along with their paragraphs for relevant background information or for additional examples):
receiving a message from a base station in the wireless network, the message comprising a dedicated search space for SDT (Tsai, see at least para. 212 along with para. 279, “...UE 110 may initiate/perform a procedure for SDT (e.g., SDT procedure). The UE 110 may receive a CG configuration...”, note that para. 279 discloses that “...the UE 110 may monitor a PDCCH (e.g., on a specific search space configured in the CG configuration) by a specific RNTI (e.g., C-RNTI/CS-RNTI)...”)
and
receiving an SDT related Downlink Control Information (DCI) according to the dedicated search space for SDT (Tsai, see at least para. 280 and/or 283, e.g. “...for the monitoring of the PDCCH, UE may attempt to detect a specific DCI (e.g., DCI format 1_0) with CRC scrambled by a specific RNTI (e.g., C-RNTI/CS-RNTI)...”).
Regarding claim 40, Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai further teaches wherein the message comprises a System Information (SI) (Tsai, see at least para. 215 along with at least para. 115 and/or 118, “...the CG configuration may include beam information (e.g., SSB/TRS/CSI-RS/assistance RS/TCI-state set/list), CG information..., and/or the association/mapping between the beam and the CG resource/occasion...”, note that for one non-limiting example, para. 115 discloses that “...a configuration of the association/mapping between SSB(s)/SSB index(es) and CG resource(s)/occasion(s) may be indicated from the NW to the UE via... system information (e.g., SIBx, where x is an integer)....”),
and wherein the SDT comprises a Random Access based (RA-based) SDT (Tsai, see at least para. 216, “...UE may trigger/initiate a SDT procedure based on some conditions. The SDT procedure may be a RA procedure (e.g., RA-based SDT)...”)
Regarding claim 53, Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai further teaches selecting a Configured Grant (CG) SDT resource based on a beam that is selected by an RA procedure, wherein the RA procedure is used to initiate the SDT; and transmitting Uplink small data using selected CG SDT resource. (Tsai, see at least para. 258-259 in view of para. 216, “...Referring FIG. 10, during the procedure and/or after receiving the CG configuration and/or after performing beam measurement, the UE 110 may perform beam selection (step S1030), e.g., select a SSB (e.g., based on a RSRP threshold for the selection of the SSB for CG). ... if at least one of the beams (e.g., SSB) with RSRP (e.g., SS-RSRP) above the RSRP threshold (among the beams in the configured beam list), UE may select one of the beams (for SDT); note that para. 216 of fig 10 discloses that “...UE may trigger/initiate a SDT procedure based on some conditions. The SDT procedure may be a RA procedure (e.g., RA-based SDT)...”)
Regarding claim 55, Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai further teaches receiving, from the base station based on a periodicity, a UL DCI associated with UL small data transmission, without explicitly requesting a UL grant for the UL small data transmission. (Tsai, see at least para. 283 in view of at least para. 71-72, “...a UE may be provided with a USS set by sdt-CG-SearchSpace, or a CSS set by sdt-SearchSpace, to monitor PDCCH for detection of DCI formats with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI or CS-RNTI for scheduling respective PUSCH transmissions or PDSCH receptions; note that para. 71-72 disclose that “...With Type 1 (e.g., CG type 1), RRC directly provides the configured uplink grant (including the periodicity)...”)
Regarding claim 57, Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai further teaches detecting an SDT failure condition associated with the SDT; in response to the SDT failure condition, transitioning to an idle state, and performing a cell selection to recover from the SDT failure condition. (Tsai, see at least para. 476 in view of fig. 10, “...if the beam failure for SDT is detected and/or if none of the beams (e.g., SSB) with RSRP (e.g., SS-RSRP) above the RSRP threshold (among the beams in the configured beam list), the UE may initiate/perform cell reselection procedure. For example, the UE may keep in RRC_INACTIVE and perform cell reselection. For another example, the UE may enter RRC_IDLE and perform cell reselection...”)
Regarding claim 58, Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai further teaches detecting an SDT failure condition associated with the SDT; and in response to the SDT failure condition, performing a Radio Resource Control (RRC) re-establishment procedure. (Tsai, see at least para. 476 in view of fig. 10, for one non-limiting example, “...if the beam failure for SDT is detected and/or if none of the beams (e.g., SSB) with RSRP (e.g., SS-RSRP) above the RSRP threshold (among the beams in the configured beam list), the UE may initiate/perform cell reselection procedure. For example, the UE may keep in RRC_INACTIVE and perform cell reselection. For another example, the UE may enter RRC_IDLE and perform cell reselection...”)
Regarding claims 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, and 67, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 39, 40, 53, 55, 57, and 58, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, Tsai also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (Tsai, see at least fig. 13), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claims 68 and 69, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 39 and 40, respectively, except each of these claims is in computer-readable medium claim format.
To be more specific, Tsai also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and computer-readable medium (Tsai, see at least fig. 13), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 52 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, in view of Jeon et al. (US 20220132596 A1, hereinafter Jeon).
Regarding claim 52,
Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai further teaches receiving, from the base station, a message comprising RA SDT parameters supporting the SDT, the RA SDT parameters comprising a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) configuration parameter for the SDT, wherein the PDSCH parameter are used for receiving downlink data in an RA-based SDT. (Tsai, see at least para. 283-284, for one non-limiting example, “...a UE may be provided with a USS set by sdt-CG-SearchSpace, or a CSS set by sdt-SearchSpace, to monitor PDCCH for detection of DCI formats with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI or CS-RNTI for scheduling respective PUSCH transmissions or PDSCH receptions...”)
Tsai does not teach broadcast message.
Jeon teaches broadcast message. (Jeon, see at least para. 118-119, for one non-limiting example, “...The search space may be a UE-specific search space or a common search space (potentially usable by a plurality of UEs). For example, a base station may configure a UE with a common search space, on a PCell or on a primary secondary cell (PSCell), in an active downlink BWP. For an uplink BWP in a set of configured uplink BWPs, a BS may configure a UE with one or more resource sets for one or more PUCCH transmissions. A UE may receive downlink receptions (e.g., PDCCH or PDSCH) in a downlink BWP according to a configured numerology (e.g., subcarrier spacing and cyclic prefix duration) for the downlink BWP...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Jeon into Tsai to provide efficient signaling mechanisms and reduce signaling overhead (Jeon, para. 219).
Regarding claim 61, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 52 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Claims 54, 56, 63, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, in view of LEE et al. (US 20220232641 A1, hereinafter LEE).
Regarding claim 54,
Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai does not teach receiving, from the base station via a Message 4 (Msg 4) or a Message B (Msg B), a dedicated resource comprising at least one of: a dedicated downlink (DL) Band Width Part (BWP), a dedicated uplink (UL) BWP, or a Scheduling Request (SR) parameter; and transmitting, to the base station using the dedicated resource, an SR to request UL grant for transmitting UL small data.
LEE teaches receiving, from the base station via a Message 4 (Msg 4) or a Message B (Msg B), a dedicated resource comprising at least one of: a dedicated downlink (DL) Band Width Part (BWP), a dedicated uplink (UL) BWP, or a Scheduling Request (SR) parameter; and transmitting, to the base station using the dedicated resource, an SR to request UL grant for transmitting UL small data. (LEE, in general, see fig. 12 and many corresponding paragraphs; in particular, see at least para 222-225 along with steps of fig. 12 and para. 221, e.g. “...The DCI for DCI format 0_0 or DCI format 1_0 may additionally allocate a PUCCH resource and send an SDT SR. In this case, the UE transmits the SDT SR on a PUCCH resource of the activated BWP (e.g., SDT BWP or initial BWP)...”, note that para. 221 discloses that “Through the SDT SR, the UE may indicate that there is UL data according to the SDT and request a UL grant for the SDT...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate LEE into Tsai to provide to provide method of efficiently performing wireless signal transmission/reception procedures (LEE, para. 4).
Regarding claim 56, Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai does not teach receiving, from the base station, a dedicated BWP to perform SDT related tasks, wherein the dedicated BWP is different from an initial BWP that the UE uses for initial cell access.
LEE teaches receiving, from the base station, a dedicated BWP to perform SDT related tasks, wherein the dedicated BWP is different from an initial BWP that the UE uses for initial cell access. (LEE, see at least para 225 along with steps of fig. 12, for one non-limiting example, “...The DCI for DCI format 0_0 or DCI format 1_0 may additionally allocate a PUCCH resource and send an SDT SR. In this case, the UE transmits the SDT SR on a PUCCH resource of the activated BWP (e.g., SDT BWP or initial BWP)....”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate LEE into Tsai to provide to provide method of efficiently performing wireless signal transmission/reception procedures (LEE, para. 4).
Regarding claims 63 and 65, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 54 and 56, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 39, 59, and 68, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights