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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 04/28/2026 and 07/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 05/05/2026 for response of the office action mailed on 03/04/2026. Independent Claims 1, 13 and 20 and dependent Claims 2 and 14 are amended. Claims 3-12 and 15-19 are canceled. Claims 1,2, 13,14, and 20 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the office action mailed 03/04/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 with respect to independent claims 1, 13 and 20, as amended have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Main argument: re independent Claims 1,13 and 20, as amended
Applicant remarks, on page 7, the rejection relied on Babaei for the base paging message feature and on Zhang for the added subject matter relating to the MT-SDT indicator and the paging cause feature. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection does not adequately establish that the cited combination teaches or suggests the added features in the manner now recited in amended claim
Examiner reply: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Here, the motivation to combine Babaei’s teachings with ZHANG is because “the PagingCause is used to indicate that a paging cause for transmitting the first paging message is downlink-triggered SDT” (¶0365, FIG. 8/embodiment 8). Further the applicant claims a paging cause with a value however, the claim is silent as to what the value is. Per the applicant’s specification, the value could be the chosen MT-SDT resource.
Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 under 35 USC 103 over Babaei in view of ZHANG is proper, as detailed herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13-14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, Claim 13, line 7 and Claim 20, line 6 as amended recites “a second MT-SDT resource”. However, the relationship and distinction between a second MT-resource and any other MT-SDT resource is unclear in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets “a second MT-SDT resource” to correspond to - - a MT-SDT resource - -.
Claim 2 and Claim 14 are objected to by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Further, Claim 2, line 2 and Claim 14, line 2, recite “and/or” which is unclear/ ambiguous. For examination purposes, examiner will interpret the limitation as an “or”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei (US 20250098019 A1), hereinafter Babaei in view of ZHANG et al. (US 20230379881 A1), hereinafter ZHANG.
Regarding Claim 1, Babaei teaches a wireless communication method (Babaei, FIG. 16; ¶0009, method of resource allocation for MT data transmission) comprising:
receiving, by a wireless communication terminal (Babaei, FIG. 16, UE) from a wireless communication node (Babaei, FIG. 16, gNB/network) a paging message indicating the wireless communication terminal to receive mobile terminated small data transmission (MT-SDT) data via a first MT-SDT resource or a second MT-SDT resource (¶0008, [t]he mobile terminated (MT) notification message may be a paging message; FIG. 16, ¶0111 a UE receiving RAN paging from gNB comprising MT-SDT notification; see also ¶0108, DL assignment configured for SPS; ¶0169-0170, random access/RA resource(s)); and
receiving, by the wireless communication terminal from the wireless communication node, the MT-SDT data via the first MT-SDT resource or the second MT-SDT resource (Babaei, ¶0169-0170, UE may receive the MT data based on (e.g., via) the radio resources, “MT-SDT resource[s]”)),
wherein the paging message comprises an MT-SDT indicator indicating the wireless communication terminal to receive the MT-SDT data (Babaei, ¶0177, the configuration parameters, in the notification message, may indicate radio resources of at least one downlink grant for receiving the mobile terminated (MT) data)).
Babaei does not explicitly teach the MT-SDT indicator comprises an indication on a paging cause with a value for an MT-SDT.
However, in the analogous art, ZHANG explicitly discloses the MT-SDT indicator comprises an indication on a paging cause with a value for an MT-SDT (ZHANG, FIG. 8, ¶0362, PagingCause is an MT-SDT) , and wherein the value for the MT-SDT comprises a first value for using the first MT-SDT resource for the MT-SDT or a second value for using the second MT-SDT resource for the MT-SDT (ZHANG, FIG. 8, Case A, PagingCause = an ENUMERATED (SDT) value, a “[first or second] value for an MT-SDT”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Babaei’s method of resource allocation for mobile terminated (MT) data transmission with ZHANG’s method and device supporting downlink-triggered (DL-triggered) Small Data Transmission (SDT). The motivation would be to reduce signaling overhead and flexibly support SDT and RRC data transmission [ZHANG, ¶0006; ¶0012].
Regarding Claim 2, Babaei and ZHANG teach Claim 1.
Babaei further teaches a first MT-SDT resource comprises a pre-configured downlink resource; and/or the second MT-SDT resource comprises a random access resource in a random access procedure (Babaei, ¶0142, configuration and allocation of radio resources for MT-SDT in DL may be configured for a UE where Dynamic vs Configured Grants may be enabled , a configured grant for DL corresponds to a “pre-configured DL resource”; see also ¶0136).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the claims disclose similar features of Claims 1 and 2 respectively, and are rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 1 and is rejected same rationales of Claim 1, in apparatus form (Babaei, FIG. 15; FIG. 16, a wireless communication terminal (UE 1500/UE), comprising: a communication unit (transceiver 1520, antenna 1510); and a processor (processor, 1540).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRACY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-7694. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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 at 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.
/TRACY L WILLIAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights