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 action is in response to the communication filed on 09/18/2026.
The claims 2, 8-10, 13, 17-24, 26 have been canceled by the applicant.
The claims 27-34 have been newly added by the applicant.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-12, 14-16 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230180223) in view of Fu et al. (WIPO. Pub. CN114258113), further in view of Tseng et al. (U.S. Pub. 20240040626), hereafter “Tseng626”.
Regarding claim 1 Tseng disclose, an SDT failure reporting method, comprising:
determining an SDT failure when an SDT failure condition is satisfied and storing SDT failure information para. 176, “the UE may try to resume the RRC connection with the UE (e.g., by initiating an RRC resume procedure) to report the failure condition to the serving RAN”,
receiving second indication information instructing a terminal device to report or not to report the SDT failure information para. 184, “the cell may also indicate whether the UE is allowed to fallback to access the common random access resources for small data transmissions or not when one or more air link problems (e.g., am RA failure event, an RLF detection, etc.)”.
Tseng does not specifically disclose, wherein the SDT failure condition comprises Radio Resource Control Reject (RRCReject) or Radio Resource Control Setup (RRCSetup) message being received. However, Fu teach, wherein the SDT failure condition comprises Radio Resource Control Reject (RRCReject) or Radio Resource Control Setup (RRCSetup) message being received para. 176, “The UE stops T319 under the following conditions: receiving a response from the network side, including an RRC Resume message, an RRC Setup message, an RRC Release message, or an RRC Reject message; generating cell reselection; or receiving the upper layer indication to stop the connection recovery process. if T319 is overtime, the UE considers that the RRC recovery process is failed”.
Tseng and Fu are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fu in the system of Tseng so the system can promptly inform the failure of the transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of resource usage.
Tseng and Fu does not specifically disclose, reporting the SDT failure information in a case where the second indication information instructs the terminal device to report the SDT failure information. However, Tseng626 teach, reporting the SDT failure information in a case where the second indication information instructs the terminal device to report the SDT failure information para. 74, “The UE may store the SDT failure event, and next time when the UE connects with the serving RAN again (e.g., anchor cell or non-anchor cell), the UE may transmit the SDT failure report to the serving RAN… After the serving cell receives the “SDT-Failure Report available” indicator, the serving cell may enquiry the UE to transmit the SDT failure report to the serving cell”.
Tseng, Fu and Tseng626 are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tseng626 in the system of Tseng and Fu so the system can promptly report this information to a serving cell in order understand the context of the failure. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid subsequent failures by adjusting resource configuration preventing further loss.
Regarding claim 3 Tseng disclose, wherein the SDT failure condition further comprises at least one of:
expiry of a first timer that is started when an SDT process starts and/or is triggered para. 8, “the at least one predefined condition includes at least one of the following: a timing advanced (TA) timer associated with a UL configured grant (CG) for the SDT procedure has expired”;
Random Access (RA) failure; Radio Link Control (RLC) failure; Radio Link Failure (RLF); cell reselection; or Radio Resource Control Reject (RRCReject) or Radio Resource Control Setup (RRCSetup) message being received. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 4 Tseng disclose, wherein the SDT failure information comprises at least one of: an SDT failure type; or a failure cause para. 170, “the UE may report the cause of reporting in the RRCResumeComplete message/RRC Re-establishment Complete message to the serving cell. For example, one additional IE, such as ‘Physical Layer Problem’, ‘Radio Link Failure’, or ‘RLC Failure event’ may be transmitted to the serving cell through the RRCResumeComplete/RRC Re-establishment Complete message to the serving cell”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the last of the alternatives. The prior art of record or any prior art searched does not address the first criteria, because the claim only requires one criteria to be met.
Regarding claim 5 Tseng disclose, wherein the SDT failure type comprises at least one of: SDT failure; Configured Grant Small Data Transmission (CG-SDT) failure; or Random Access Small Data Transmission (RA-SDT) failure para. 128, “initiate the SCG failure information procedure when a small data transmission procedure (e.g., through a random access procedure) fails (e.g., when a random access problem indication from the MAC entity is received)”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the last of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 6 Tseng disclose, wherein the failure cause comprises at least one of: expiry of a first timer that is started when an SDT process starts and/or is triggered, Random Access (RA) failure; Configured Grant (CG) resource being unavailable; Radio Link Control (RLC) failure; beam recovery failure; cell reselection; or Radio Resource Control Reject (RRCReject) or Radio Resource Control Setup (RRCSetup) message being received, para. 129, Table 5, “The UE declares Radio Link Failure (RLF) when one of the following criteria are met: - Expiry of a timer started after indication of radio problems from the physical layer (if radio problems are recovered before the timer is expired, the UE stops the timer); or - Random access procedure failure”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives. The prior art of record or any prior art searched does not address the second to sixth criteria, because the claim only requires one criteria to be met.
Regarding claim 7 Tseng disclose, further comprising: reporting the SDT failure information via a Radio Link Failure (RLF) report; or reporting the SDT failure information via dedicated information, para. 169, “In some implementations, the UE may report the cause of reporting in the RRCResumeRequest message/RRC Re-establishment Request message to the serving cell”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives. The prior art of record or any prior art searched does not address the second, because the claim only requires one criteria to be met.
Regarding claim 8 Tseng disclose, wherein the first serving cell comprises at least one of para. 169, “In some implementations, the UE may report the cause of reporting in the RRCResumeRequest message/RRC Re-establishment Request message to the serving cell”: a cell accessed using a non-SDT random access process, a cell successfully accessed using a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection reestablishment process, or a cell successfully accessed when a terminal device re-enters an RRC connected state para. 169, “For example, one additional IE, such as ‘Physical Layer Problem’, ‘Radio Link Failure’, or ‘RLC Failure event’ may be transmitted to the serving cell through the RRCResumeRequest/RRC Re-establishment Request message to the serving cell”. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the second of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 9 Tseng disclose, further comprising: storing the SDT failure information para. 176, “The failed RA attempts for packet transmission may be stored in the UE”.
Regarding claim 11 Tseng disclose, wherein the SDT failure information further comprises an identity of the first cell para. 49, “A UE-specific reference may include a reference to the UE context within a logical NG-RAN node. An NG-RAN node address index may include information that identifies the NG-RAN node that allocates the UE specific part”.
Regarding claim 12 Tseng disclose, further comprising:
reporting first indication information indicating that there is SDT failure information to be reported para. 129, Table 4, “Expiry of a timer started after indication of radio problems from the physical layer (if radio problems are recovered before the timer is expired, the UE stops the timer); or - Random access procedure failure; or - RLC failure. After RLF is declared”.
Regarding claim 14 Tseng disclose, further comprising: receiving uplink data from a higher layer para. 115, “After receiving the at least one UL resource (e.g., through an RRC message), process 400 may select, at 420, one of the NUL frequency carrier and the SUL frequency carrier to transmit data (e.g., one or more small packets) received from higher layers to the serving cell (or base station)”; and
transmitting the uplink data over a random access resource and/or a the CG resource para. 161, “the UE may be able to transmit small packets through a (contention-free and/or contention-based) random access procedure”.
Regarding claim 15 Tseng disclose, wherein when it is determined to transmit the uplink data over the CG resource, at least one of the following conditions is satisfied para. 122, “In addition to the above-described small data transmissions (e.g., through either an uplink configured grant configuration or a random access procedure):
a data amount of the uplink data being smaller than or equal to an SDT threshold; a change amount of signal quality of a serving cell being smaller than or equal to a quality threshold; a CG resource being available on a selected carrier para. 122, “implemented on a normal uplink component carrier and/or a supplementary uplink component carrier”; a CG resource being available on a selected beam; or a Timing Advance (TA) timer being running. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the fifth of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 16 Tseng teaches, terminal device, comprising a processor and a memory, para. 195, “in FIG. 5, node 500 may include processor 526 and memory 528,”; furthermore claim 16, recites an apparatus corresponding to the device of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 25 and 34 the limitations of claims 25 and 34, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 27 Tseng teaches, wherein determining the SDT failure in a case of the RLF comprises:
performing radio link recovery after the RLF occurs para. 128, “based on Table, the UE may also initiate radio link failure (RLF) procedure, initiate the failure information procedure, initiate the connection re-establishment procedure, and/or initiate the SCG failure information procedure when a small data transmission procedure (e.g., through a random access procedure) fails”;
performing beam recovery before performing the radio link recovery; and
determining the SDT failure in a case where the beam recovery fails. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives. The prior art of record or any prior art searched does not address the second and third criteria, because the claim only requires one criteria to be met.
Regarding claim 29 Tseng teaches, wherein reporting the SDT failure information comprises:
reporting the SDT failure information to a first serving cell, the first serving cell comprises at least one of para. 129, Table 3, “Detection of radio link failure The UE shall: initiate the failure information procedure as specified in 5.7.5 to report RLC failure”:
a cell accessed using a non-SDT random access process,
a cell successfully accessed using an RRC connection reestablishment process para. 43, “the Primary Cell (PCell) may be an MCG cell that operates on the primary frequency, in which the UE either performs the initial connection establishment procedure or initiates the connection reestablishment procedure”, or
a cell successfully accessed when a terminal device re-enters an RRC connected state. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the second of the alternatives. The prior art of record or any prior art searched does not address the first and third criteria, because the claim only requires one criteria to be met.
Regarding claim 30 Tseng teaches, wherein the first serving cell is a first cell configured with an SDT resource and having an SDT failure occurring therein; or the first serving cell is a second cell other than the first cell para. 193, “which instructs the UE to re-build the RRC Connection with the serving cell. In such a condition, the UE may move to an RRC_IDLE state and remove the pending data in the buffer of the MAC entity and so stop/release the timers/counters configured for SDT procedure”.
Regarding claim 32 Tseng teaches, wherein reporting the SDT failure information comprises any one of the following:
initiating Non-Small Data Transmission (NON-SDT) random access para. 80, “some aspects of the present implementations, MSG B may include one or more responses for contention resolution, fallback indication(s), and/or backoff indication (e.g., to instruct the UE to re-initiate an SDT procedure or a non-SDT procedure after a backoff time interval)”, and reporting the SDT failure information to a successfully accessed serving cell after successfully accessing the serving cell;
initiating connection reestablishment, and reporting the SDT failure information to a successfully accessed serving cell after successful reestablishment and access to the serving cell; or
entering an idle state, and reporting the SDT failure information to a successfully accessed serving cell when entering a connected state next time. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives. The prior art of record or any prior art searched does not address the second, third or fourth criteria, because the claim only requires one criteria to be met.
Claim 33 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Agiwal (U.S. Pub. 20220201659) which disclose(s) method for handling configured grant (cg) resources for small data transmission (sdt) in wireless communication system, involves transmitting second uplink data of sdt by using cg resource associated with cg resource information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
