Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/443,379

Data Transmission Method for Small Data Transmission (SDT) and Terminal

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Feb 16, 2024
Examiner
DUONG, FRANK
Art Unit
2474
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
1210 granted / 1341 resolved
+32.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1366
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
§103
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1341 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Office Action is a response to communications dated02/15/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 02/16/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been considered and placed in the application file. 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 11,582,790) (hereinafter “Tsai”). Regarding claim 1, in accordance with Tsai reference entirety, Tsai teaches a data transmission method for small data transmission (SDT) (Abstract and thereinafter: “A user equipment (UE) and a method for small data transmission (SDT) are provided … .”), wherein the method comprises: obtaining (receiving/configured), by a terminal (UE), first configuration information (small data transmission configuration(s)/CG configuration) (FIG. 1 and col. 13, lines 30-33: “UE 102 may be configured with a CG configuration for SDT (e.g., configured by the small data transmission configuration) from the NW 101”), wherein the first configuration information (small data transmission configuration(s)) comprises at least one of a transmission resource or a transmission configuration parameter that are for SDT (CG resource #1 121, CG resource #2 122, CG resource #3 123, and CG resource #4 124) (col. 13, lines 33-36: “The CG configuration may indicate UL resources with periodicity 108, including CG resource #1 121, CG resource #2 122, CG resource #3 123, and CG resource #4 124.”); determining, by the terminal (UE 102) after an SDT procedure is triggered (small data transmission), a target quantity of times (response/feedback) of retransmission (col. 13, lines 47-55: "To increase the reliability of small data transmission in RRC_INACTIVE, the mechanism for retransmission may be supported. For retransmission, the UE 102 may receive the response/feedback (e.g., ACK/NACK) from the NW 101 to check whether the previous UL transmission is successful or not.” Moreover, col. 14, lines 44-45: “Based on the feedback from the NW 101, the UE 102 may perform the retransmission when the UE 102 receives the feedback with “NACK” information and/or when the UE 102 does not receive feedback with “ACK” information from the NW 101 … within the time duration)”. Tsai’s “response/feedback” is equated to correspond to “target quantity of times of retransmission” because the “target quantity of times of retransmission” appears to encompass “a single retransmission” or “one retransmission”); and performing, by the terminal (UE 102), retransmission (retransmission) based on the first configuration information (small data transmission configuration(s)/CG configuration) and the target quantity of times (Downlink Feedback Information or feedback or response timer 110 running or feedback or check whether the previous UL transmission is successful or not) of retransmission (col. 14, lines 44-61: "Based on the feedback from the NW 101, the UE 102 may perform the retransmission when the UE 102 receives the feedback with "NACK" information and/or when the UE 102 does not receive feedback with "ACK" information from the NW 101 (e.g., the UE 102 does not receive the "ACK" information from the NW 101 within the time duration). Retransmissions may be performed on the resource and, if provided, with the MCS indicated on PDCCH, or on the same resource and with the same MCS as was used for the last transmission attempt within a bundle, or on stored configured uplink grant resources and stored MCS when cg-Retransmission Timer is configured. In one implementation, the UE 102 may perform the retransmission via configured grant 106, which may also be referred to as a UL resource configured by the CG configuration. In one implementation, the UE 102 may perform the retransmission via dynamic grant 107, which may also be referred to as a UL grant scheduled by the NW 101."). As per claim 11, the claim appears to call for a terminal having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claim 1. Therefore, it is anticipated by Tsai for the same rationales applied to method claim 1 as above discussed. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-20 and 12-20 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, appears to fail to fairly show or suggest a claim invention of base claims 1 and 11 and further limits with novel and unobvious limitations of “wherein the determining, by the terminal, a target quantity of times of retransmission comprises: determining, by the terminal, target information, wherein the target information is used to instruct the terminal to perform retransmission the target quantity of times of retransmission in the SDT procedure; and determining, by the terminal based on the target information, the target quantity of times of retransmission,” as recited in group claims 2-9 and 12-19; and “wherein the first configuration information comprises second configuration information in a configured grant (CG) corresponding to the terminal; and the performing, by the terminal, retransmission based on the first configuration information and the target quantity of times of retransmission comprises: determining, after the terminal triggers a second SDT procedure, that the target quantity of times of retransmission is a quantity of times of retransmission indicated by the second configuration information,” as recited in claims 10 and 20, structurally and functionally interconnected in a manner as claimed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 11,627,632). Kim et al. (US 2023/0422149). Xiong et al. (US 2023/0224953). Alfarhan et al. (US 2023/0189245). Tsai et al. (US 2023/0040421). Tsai et al. (US 2022/0417983). Kim et al. (US 2022/0232659). Agiwal et al. (US 2022/0022247). Tsai et al. (US 2021/0410180). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM. 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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03. /FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 January 16, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598494
SIGNAL QUALITY MEASUREMENTS FOR IDENTIFYING INTELLIGENT REFLECTION SURFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598010
PATHLOSS PREDICTION USING A MACHINE LEARNING COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593306
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR POSITIONING TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593316
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587463
Antenna Configuration Operator Interface
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.6%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1341 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month