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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on December 28, 2023.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on December 28, 2023 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/399193, filed on December 28, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 31, 2024, June 25, 2024, November 21, 2024 ,and September 09, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application 18/399193 on December 28, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alfarhan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2023/0189245 A1 / or “Alfarhan” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Alfarhan discloses “A terminal device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the terminal device at least to perform” (Fig. 1B: Processor 118, Memory 132, 130; and Para 0027):
“obtaining, when the terminal device is in an inactive state while a small data transmission (SDT) procedure is ongoing, information that indicates transmission of a data unit over a radio bearer to the terminal device” (Para 102, a WTRU i.e. , a “terminal device” receives DL small data; and Para 0115-0116: where the DL small data is received in an inactive mode);
“checking whether or not the radio bearer is configured for the SDT procedure” (Para 0114: determines whether to send HARQ feedback or not; and Para 0117: determination made whether a data radio bearer (DRB) i.e., a “radio bearer” supports SDT or not);
“and determining whether or not to avoid further processing and/or decoding of the data unit based at least on the checking” (Para 0114: lines 21-32, “The above condition for sending HARQ feedback may further include the HARQ feedback being an ACK. In another example, on condition that the determined TBS is greater than (or equal to) the TBS threshold, or the HARQ feedback is a NACK, or the DRB does not support SDI, the WTRU may transmit an RRC connection request (e.g., using a legacy RA procedure). In some cases, the WTRU may determine an UL time alignment, and on condition that the WTRU is not UL time aligned, the WTRU may transmit an RRC connection request”. Para 0115: if above conditions are not met then alternate actions are taken).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the terminal device to perform: in response to determining that the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit is to be avoided, performing one or more actions for avoiding the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit associated with the radio bearer” (Para 0115: : if certain conditions are not met then alternate actions are taken; and Para 0117: determination made whether a data radio bearer (DRB) i.e., a “radio bearer” supports SDT or not).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 2, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the one or more actions comprise at least: transitioning from the inactive state to an idle state” (Para 0070: idle or suspended mode).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 2, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the terminal device to obtain the data unit, the one or more actions comprising at least one of:
storing the data unit in a buffer;
storing the data unit in the buffer and flushing the data unit stored in the buffer;
discarding the data unit; or
“suspending sending of the data unit to an upper layer” (Para 0070: idle or suspended mode).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the terminal device to perform: in response to determining that the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit is not to be avoided, remaining in the inactive state without performing any actions for avoiding the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit associated with the radio bearer” (Para 0070: idle or suspended mode; and Para 0117: determination made whether a data radio bearer (DRB) i.e., a “radio bearer” supports SDT or not then remains in idle mode).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the determining comprises one of the following: determining that the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit is to be avoided in response to the radio bearer not being configured for the SDT procedure; or
“determining that the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit is not to be avoided in response to the radio bearer being configured for the SDT procedure” (Par 0003: determination is made whether the Data Radio Bearer (DRB) supports small data transmission (SDT) or not and takes action based on the determination; and Para 0114; and 0070).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the determining comprises of the following: in response to the radio bearer not being configured for the SDT procedure and also failing to satisfy any of one or more pre-defined criteria, determining that the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit is to be avoided; or
“in response to the radio bearer being configured for the SDT procedure, or the radio bearer being not being configured for the SDT procedure but satisfying at least one of the one or more pre-defined criteria, determining that the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit is not to be avoided” (Para 0114: lines 21-32, “The above condition for sending HARQ feedback may further include the HARQ feedback being an ACK. In another example, on condition that the determined TBS is greater than (or equal to) the TBS threshold, or the HARQ feedback is a NACK, or the DRB does not support SDI, the WTRU may transmit an RRC connection request ( e.g., using a legacy RA procedure). In some cases, the WTRU may determine an UL time alignment, and on condition that the WTRU is not UL time aligned, the WTRU may transmit an RRC connection request”. Para 0115: if above conditions are not met then alternate actions are taken).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 7, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the one or more pre-defined criteria comprise one of the following: a criterion requiring the radio bearer to be a signaling radio bearer 1 (SRB1)” (Para 0083: an SRB);
a criterion requiring the radio bearer to be a radio bearer configured with integrity protection; or
a criterion requiring the network node associated with the radio bearer to be known by the terminal device to be a valid, non-fraudulent network node.
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 8, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the terminal device to perform:
determining that the network node is a valid, non-fraudulent network node in response to the radio bearer associated with the network node being SRB1 or
“the radio bearer associated with the network node being integrity protected” (Para 0083: an SRB).
Regarding claim 10, in view of claim 1, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the terminal device to perform: in response to determining that the further processing and/or decoding of the data unit is to be avoided, logging information related to the data unit, wherein the logged information comprises at least one of:
physical cell identifier;
new radio cell global identifier;
tracking area identity;
“SRB1” (Para 0083: an SRB); or
“the radio bearer” (Para 0083: dedicated radio bearer (DRB)).
Regarding claim 14, in view of claim 1, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the SDT procedure comprises at least one of a mobile-originated small data transmission, or
“a mobile-terminated small data transmission” (Para 0003: WTRU receives SDT configuration information).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a method corresponding to the device recited in claim 1. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
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 of this title, 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 11-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfarhan in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2025/0048474 Al / or “Kim” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 10, Alfarhan discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the terminal device to perform” (Fig. 1B: Processor 118, Memory 132, 130; and Para 0027):
Alfarhan also discloses whether a data radio bearer (DRB) i.e., a “radio bearer” supports SDT or not (Para 0117).
But Alfarhan fails to specially disclose a network node requesting a radio bearer configuration information.
However, Kim discloses “receiving, from the network node, a request for reporting all or at least some of logged information related to data units received over radio bearers not configured for the SDT procedure while the SDT procedure is ongoing” (Kim, para 0464: the wireless devices transmits message for the SDT procedure);
“and in response to the radio bearer not being configured for the SDT procedure, transmitting, to the network node, at least the logged information related to the data unit over the radio bearer or a part thereof” (Kim, Para 0464-0465).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a network node requesting a radio bearer configuration information of Kim system of to create a system Alfarhan where a base station may verify the RRC request message and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “…successfully identifying and verifying the wireless device, the base station may transmit a response.” (Kim, Para 0465).
Regarding claim 12, in view of claim 1, Alfarhan in view of Kim disclose “wherein the data unit comprises at least one of: a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit, or a MAC service data unit” (Kim, Para 0093 and 0465: MAC) [see claim 11 for motivation].
Regarding claim 13, in view of claim 1, Alfarhan in view of Kim disclose “wherein the information that indicates the transmission of the data unit comprises a logical channel identifier (LCID), or an extended LCID” (Kim, Para 00093: Logical Channel Identifier (LCID) is disclosed) [see claim 11 for motivation].
Regarding claim 16, Alfarhan discloses “A network node, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network node at least to perform” (Fig. 1B: Processor 118, Memory 132, 130; and Para 0027):
“suspending all transmissions of data units to a terminal device over any radio bearer not configured for a small data transmission (SDT) procedure involving the terminal device when the terminal device is in an inactive state while the SDT procedure is ongoing (Para 0070: idle or suspended mode); or
Alfarhan also discloses whether a data radio bearer (DRB) i.e., a “radio bearer” supports SDT or not (Para 0117).
But Alfarhan fails to specially disclose a network node requesting a wireless device data involving a radio bearer not configured for the SDT process and the radio bearer is a signaling radio bearer 1 (SRB1) .
However, Kim discloses “transmitting, to the terminal device when the terminal device is in the inactive state while the SDT procedure involving the terminal device is ongoing, a data unit over a radio bearer not configured for the SDT procedure, wherein the radio bearer is a signaling radio bearer 1 (SRB1) or a radio bearer configured with integrity protection” (Kim, para 0464: the wireless devices transmits message for the SDT procedure; and Para 0248” SRB1 is disclosed).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a network node requesting a wireless device data involving a radio bearer not configured for the SDT process and the radio bearer is a SRB1 of Kim system of to create a system Alfarhan where a base station may verify the RRC request message and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “…successfully identifying and verifying the wireless device, the base station may transmit a response.” (Kim, Para 0465).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a network node corresponding to the device recited in claim 13. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 13, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, in view of claim 16, Alfarhan in view of Kim disclose “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the network node to perform: suspending, when the terminal device is in the inactive state while the SDT procedure involving the terminal device is ongoing, all transmissions of data units to the terminal device over radio bearers not configured for the SDT procedure and further the radio bearers not being the SRB1 or configured with integrity protection” (Kim, para 0464: the wireless devices transmits message for the SDT procedure; and Para 0248” SRB1 is disclosed).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a network node corresponding to the device recited in claim 11. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 11, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Alfarhan in view of Kim disclose “wherein the logged information comprises at least one of: physical cell identifier; new radio cell global identifier; tracking area identity; SRB1 (Para 0083: an SRB); or the radio bearer” (Para 0083: dedicated radio bearer (DRB)).
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al. (US 20230102755 A1) discloses:
[0038] ….The network 104 then sends the RRCRelease with Suspendconfig message 108. The RRCRelease with Suspendconfig message 108 may include a Next Hop Chaining Counter (NCC) value and SDT configuration information. The SDT configuration information may include information such as whether the network is configured to use an SDT procedure 112, a data radio bearer (DRB) (SDT-DRB) associated with the SDT procedure 112, bandwidth parts (BWPs) to use with the SDT procedure 112, and/or an overall SDT data amount threshold that sets an upper limit on an amount (or size) of UP data that can initiate the SDT procedure 112.
Tseng et al. (US 20220408403 A1) discloses:
[0213] In some implementations, determining whether to terminate the SDT procedure or not may include determining to terminate the SDT procedure while the UE is in an RRC Inactive state, transitioning from the RRC Inactive state to an RRC Idle state after terminating the SDT procedure, and attempting to connect with the serving RAN by initiating an RRC establishment procedure after transitioning to the RRC Idle state. In some implementations, determining whether to terminate the SDT procedure or not may include determining whether to terminate the SDT procedure or not based on the access type information in the at least one paging message.Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/TRANG T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431