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
In accordance with the Remarks filed 02/13/2026, claims 39-40 and 51 are elected, without traverse, for examination on the merits and, hence, pending.
This application does not claim priorities from any domestic application or to any foreign application.
Objections
Claims 39 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities, and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 line 1, the term “SDT” needs to be defined as to what it stands for to avoid ambiguity.
Claim 40 line 2, the term “RA” needs to be defined as to what it stands for to avoid ambiguity.
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 and 51 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 SDT, performed by a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless network, the method comprising (in general, see fig. 1 and 2 along with their paragraphs):
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. 101 in view of para. 95 of fig. 1, “...Step S240/S250: Once the RA procedure is successfully completed, the UE 110 may monitor a specific RNTI (e.g., C-RNTI/CS-RNTI) for subsequent data transmission. Subsequent data transmission may be the transmission of multiple UL and/or DL packets as part of the same SDT mechanism ... UE 110 may monitor PDCCH via a specific RNTI (e.g., C-RNTI/CS-RNTI) to receive the dynamic scheduling for UL and/or DL new transmission and/or the corresponding retransmission...”, note that in para. 95, “...UE 110 may monitor PDCCH on a specific search space (e.g., a SDT search space) via a specific RNTI (e.g., C-RNTI and/or CS-RNTI) to receive the dynamic scheduling...”);
and
receiving an SDT related Downlink Control Information (DCI) according to the dedicated search space for SDT (Tsai, see at least para. 95 along with para. 283, note that “...In one embodiment, 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...”).
Regarding claim 51, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 39 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, Tsai also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising a memory for storing computer instructions and a processor in communication with the 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.
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.
Claim 40 is 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 40, Tsai teaches claim 39.
Tsai further teaches wherein the SDT comprises an RA-based SDT (Tsai, see at least para. 101 and fig. 2, e.g. RA-based SDT).
Tsai does not specifically teach the message comprises a System Information (SI).
Jeon teaches the message comprises a System Information (SI) (in general, see sections including, but not limited to, para. 239-243, in particular, see at least para. 239, “...A wireless device may initiate an RA-based SDT on a cell. The wireless device may determine a particular RA type of an RA procedure for the RA-based SDT. For example, a network or a base station may transmit (e.g., broadcast, multicast, and/or unicast) one or more messages (e.g., system information block(s), RRC message(s), MAC CE(s), DCI(s) and/or any combination thereof), comprising configuration parameters of the RA-based SDT for the cell...”).
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 the method of Tsai to provide efficient signaling mechanisms and reduce signaling overhead (Jeon, para. 219).
Conclusion
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 A. 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