DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 09/27/2023.
Claims 1-16 and 19-22 are pending for Examination.
Claims 17-18 were cancelled by preliminary amendment.
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 Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on: 09/27/2023, 10/09/2023, and 06/09/2025 are determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS’ are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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 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, 3-4, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US Patent No. 12,532,307 B2, Shi et al. (hereinafter “Shi”).
With respect to claim 1, Shi teaches:
A method for determining a data amount, comprising:
determining a candidate radio bearer (RB) capable of triggering small data transmission (SDT) (col. 9, lines 31-35, col. 9, ln. 65 to col. 10, ln. 24, and col. 10, lines 42-63; block 201 of Fig. 2, and block 302 of Fig. 3 —a UE can receive RRC-specific signaling, such as an RRCRelease message, that indicates a data radio bearer (DRB) having a volume of buffered data capable of triggering/supporting a SDT);
determining a first data amount of uplink data to be transmitted from the candidate RB, determining a second data amount of a packet header required to be added for transmission of the uplink data, and determining a third data amount of auxiliary information required to be transmitted along with the uplink data (col. 1, lines 35-50, and col. 6, lines 8-35; and block 202 of Fig. 2 —a UE can determine first amount of data corresponding to a volume of data to be transmitted in an UL MAC PDU (RRC message data and/or buffered DRB data), a second amount of data corresponding to a volume of data of a protocol layer header, i.e., MAC, RLC, or PDCP header, to be appended to the UL PDU, and a third amount of data corresponding to an auxiliary information volume of data, such as a MAC CE to be transmitted in the UL PDU); and
determining, according to the first data amount, the second data amount and the third data amount, a total data amount of data required to be transmitted from the candidate RB (col. 6, lines 8-42, col. 10, lines 6-24, and lines 42-63—a cumulative first data volume of data for an UL PDU transmission on a DRB can be determined by a UE from the constituent first, second, and third data amounts, thereof).
With respect to claim 3, Shi teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the packet header at least comprises a radio link control (RLC) packet header, and the method further comprises:
determining a type of an RLC data packet or an RLC packet header; and determining a second data amount of the RLC data packet according to the type of the RLC data packet or the RLC packet header (col. 6, lines 23-31, col. 7, lines 38-48, and col. 11, lines 12-14 and 39-42 —a UE can determine a type of a header to be an RLC packet header and a data volume of a corresponding RLC packet header —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Limitations section).
With respect to claim 4, Shi teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a third data amount of auxiliary information required to be transmitted along with the uplink data comprises:
determining a type of the auxiliary information; and
determining the third data amount according to the type of the auxiliary information (col. 6, lines 20-35 and 61-64, col. 7, lines 43-48, and col. 11, lines 7-42 —a UE can determine an auxiliary information type to be a MAC CE associated with reporting buffered data, i.e., a buffer status report (BSR) MAC CE, and a corresponding data volume thereof).
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 19 is directed to a communication apparatus with a processor and memory (col 12, lines 25-46; and communication device 500 with memory 520 and processor 510 of Fig. 5). As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Shi, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 21, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a processor-executable computer program (col. 12, lines 25-46; and memory 520 and processor 510 of terminal device 500 of Fig. 5). As such, claim 21 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Shi, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0150332 A1, Yang.
With Respect to Claim 2, Shi teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Shi does not explicitly teach:
determining a data type of the uplink data; and
determining, according to the data type, the packet header required to be added for transmission of the uplink data.
Yang does teach:
determining a data type of an uplink data; and
determining, according to the data type, the packet header required to be added for transmission of the uplink data (paras. [0044], [0050]-[0052], and [0059]; S210 of Fig. 3, and Figs. 4-5 —for a UE UL data transmission, a data type for data to be transmitted can be determined, and then packet header addition can be achieved through header compression processing on an UL data, based on the determined type of data to be transmitted).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi’s SDT solution including determination of a data volume for UL data to be transmitted, with determining a data type and corresponding header addition for UL data to be transmitted, as taught by Yang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to distinguish data types within a header for UL data transmissions, as recognized by Yang (paras. [0044], [0050]-[0052], and [0059]; S210 of Fig. 3, and Figs. 4-5).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0380003 A1, Agiwal et al. (hereinafter “Agiwal”).
With respect to claim 5, Shi teaches:
The method according to claim 1.
However, Shi does not explicitly teach:
determining the data amount required to be transmitted from the candidate RB, additionally according to packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) message authentication code for integrity (MAC-I).
Agiwal does teach:
determining a data amount required to be transmitted according to PDCP MAC-I (paras. [0036]-[0041], [0073], [0082], [0101], and [0127]-[0135] —a UE can determine an amount of data to be transmitted with an UL SDT including integrity protection, i.e., via PDCP MAC-I, which can be at least 16-bits).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi’s determination of a total of data required to be transmitted from a candidate RB, to also include data integrity protection for UL small data transmissions, as taught by Agiwal.
The motivation for doing so would have been to include data integrity protection via MAC-I within the UL data, as recognized by Agiwal (paras. [0036]-[0041], [0073], [0082], [0101], and [0127]-[0135]).
With respect to claim 6, Shi in view of Agiwal teaches the method according to claim 5. However, Shi does not explicitly teach:
deleting the PDCP MAC-I in a process of triggering the SDT by determining that a type of the candidate RB is signaling radio bearer (SRB) 2.
Agiwal does teach:
deleting the PDCP MAC-I when triggering a SDT, by determining that a type of the candidate RB is SRB2 (paras. [0164], [0183], [0301] —a candidate RB can be determined to be SRB2 and when triggering a SDT thereon a UE can delete all derived security/integrity authentication or keys already stored in AS context, and derive new ones).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi’s determination of a total of data required to be transmitted from a candidate RB, to also include data integrity protection for UL small data transmissions, as taught by Agiwal.
The motivation for doing so would have been to include data integrity protection via MAC-I within the UL data, as recognized by Agiwal (paras. [0036]-[0041], [0073], [0082], [0101], and [0127]-[0135]).
Claims 7-8, 10, 14-15, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of NPL-U: 3GPP TS-RAN2 Meeting #112 Electronic, R2-2009096, Nov. 2-13, 2020 (Samsung).
With respect to claim 7, Shi teaches:
The method according to claim 1, including determining candidate SDT types (col. 5, ln. 45 to col. 6, ln. 16, col. 9, lines 50-59 —a SDT type can be determined to be one of three transmission types: 1. an UL SDT transmission based on 4-step RA, 2. an UL SDT based on 2-step RA, or 3. an UL SDT based on configured grant (CG)).
However, Shi does not explicitly teach:
determining data amount thresholds corresponding to its candidate SDT types;
determining an available SDT type from the candidate SDT types according to relations between the total data amount and the data amount thresholds; and
transmitting the uplink data on the basis of the available SDT type.
NPL-U does teach:
determining data amount thresholds corresponding to its candidate SDT types (Sec. 2.1: Criteria to determine whether to use 4-step RA for SDT or not, Cond 3: a data amount threshold can be configured to determine when to initiate 4-step RA; and Sec. 2.2: Criteria to determine whether to use 2-step RA for SDT or not, Cond 3: a data amount threshold can be configured to determine whether to initiate 2-step RA).
determining an available SDT type from the candidate SDT types according to relations between the total data amount and the data amount thresholds (Sec. 2.1: when a data amount threshold condition is met for 4-step RA it can be determined to transmit SDT data via 4-step RA; and Sec. 2.2: when a data amount threshold condition is met for 2-step RA it can be determined to transmit SDT data via 2-step RA); and
transmitting the uplink data on the basis of the available SDT type (Introduction, Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 2.2 —when SDT availability is determined for 4-step RA, i.e., based on its data threshold condition being met, SDT can be communicated via Msg. 3 —when SDT availability is determined for 2-step RA, i.e., based on its data threshold condition being met, SDT can be communicated via Msg. A).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi’s determination of whether to perform an UL SDT for a certain SDT type, i.e., for 4-step RA, 2-step RA, CG or PUR, to further include respective data threshold condition determinations considering SDT type, as taught by NPL-U.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better qualify conditions for determining when/how to initiate an UL SDT per SDT type, as recognized by NPL-U (Introduction, Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 2.2).
With respect to claim 8, Shi in view of NPL-U teaches:
The method according to claim 7, wherein the determining data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types comprises:
determining the data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types according to an explicit indication, or determining the data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types according to an implicit indication (Shi: col. 5, ln. 45 to col. 6, ln. 40, col. 8, ln. 4 to col. 9, ln. 10 —a data amount threshold corresponding to a candidate SDT type(s) can be either configured explicitly or determined implicitly —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 10, Shi in view of NPL-U teaches:
The method according to claim 7, wherein the determining an available SDT type further comprises:
determining that there is no available SDT type in the candidate SDT types by determining that the total data amount is greater than a specified threshold of the data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types (Shi: col. 1, lines 35-50, col. 5, lines 45-61, col. 8, lines 4-22; and col. 9, lines 45-59; and blocks 303 and 305 of Fig. 3 —a terminal device can determine that when a total data volume for its UL SDT is less than or equal to a data volume threshold, to transmit the UL SDT via a corresponding SDT type, i.e., 2-step RA or 4-step RA process —conversely, when the total data volume is determined to be greater than the data volume threshold the UE can determine not to transmit its UL SDT via a corresponding SDT type).
With respect to claim 14, Shi teaches:
A method for configuring a threshold, comprising
configuring corresponding data amount threshold for a candidate SDT type(s) of a terminal (col. 1, lines 35-50, col. 5, ln. 45 to col. 6, ln. 16, col. 9, lines 50-59 —a UE can determine one of three configured, candidate SDT types: 1. an UL SDT transmission based on 4-step RA, 2. an UL SDT based on 2-step RA, or 3. an UL SDT based on configured grant (CG), and apply a data volume threshold to further determining when to transmit small data via its determined candidate SDT type),
wherein a total data amount is determined on the basis of a first data amount of uplink data to be transmitted from a candidate RB, a second data amount of a packet header required to be added for transmission of the uplink data, and a third data amount of auxiliary information required to be transmitted along with the uplink data (col. 1, lines 35-50, and col. 6, lines 8-42, col. 10, lines 6-24, and lines 42-63; and block 202 of Fig. 2 —a UE can determine a total amount of data including: first amount of data corresponding to a volume of data to be transmitted in an UL MAC PDU (RRC message data and/or buffered DRB data), a second amount of data corresponding to a volume of data of a protocol layer header, i.e., MAC, RLC, or PDCP header, to be appended to the UL PDU, and a third amount of data corresponding to an auxiliary information volume of data, such as a MAC CE to be transmitted in the UL PDU);
However, Shi does not explicitly teach:
determining data amount thresholds corresponding to its candidate SDT types; and
determining an available SDT type from the candidate SDT types according to relations between the total data amount and the data amount thresholds.
NPL-U does teach:
configuring data amount thresholds corresponding to for candidate SDT types (Sec. 2.1: Criteria to determine whether to use 4-step RA for SDT or not, Cond 3: a data amount threshold can be configured to determine when to initiate 4-step RA; and Sec. 2.2: Criteria to determine whether to use 2-step RA for SDT or not, Cond 3: a data amount threshold can be configured to determine whether to initiate 2-step RA); and
determining an available SDT type from the candidate SDT types according to relations between the total data amount and the data amount thresholds (Sec. 2.1: when a data amount threshold condition is met for 4-step RA it can be determined to transmit SDT data via 4-step RA; and Sec. 2.2: when a data amount threshold condition is met for 2-step RA it can be determined to transmit SDT data via 2-step RA).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi’s determination of whether to perform an UL SDT for a certain SDT type, i.e., for 4-step RA, 2-step RA, CG or PUR, to further include respective data threshold condition determinations considering SDT type, as taught by NPL-U.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better qualify conditions for determining when/how to initiate an UL SDT per SDT type, as recognized by NPL-U (Introduction, Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 2.2).
With respect to claim 15, Shi in view of NPL-U teaches:
The method according to claim 14, wherein the configuring corresponding data amount thresholds for candidate SDT types of a terminal comprises:
configuring the corresponding data amount thresholds for the candidate SDT types of the terminal in an explicit manner, or configuring the corresponding data amount thresholds for the candidate SDT types of the terminal in an implicit manner (Shi: col. 5, ln. 45 to col. 6, ln. 40, col. 8, ln. 4 to col. 9, ln. 10 —a data amount threshold corresponding to a candidate SDT type(s) can be either configured explicitly or determined implicitly —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 14, except claim 20 is directed to a communication apparatus with a processor and memory (Shi: col. 12, lines 25-46; and communication device 500 with memory 520 and processor 510 of Fig. 5). As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Shi in view of NPL-U, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 14.
With respect to claim 22, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 14, except claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a processor-executable computer program (Shi: col. 12, lines 25-46; and memory 520 and processor 510 of terminal device 500 of Fig. 5). As such, claim 22 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Shi in view of NPL-U, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 14.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of NPL-U, in further view of US Patent No. 12,574,876 B2, Chen.
With respect to claim 11, Shi in view of NPL-U teaches:
The method according to claim 7
However, Shi in view of NPL-U do not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining an available SDT type further comprises:
determining a target SDT type corresponding to a target threshold satisfying a target relation with the total data amount from the data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types; and determining the target SDT type as the available SDT type.
Chen does teach:
determining a target SDT type corresponding to a target threshold satisfying a target relation with a total data amount from data amount thresholds corresponding to candidate SDT types; and determining a target SDT type as an available SDT type (col. 6, lines 4-19, col. 7, lines 46-66; col. 9, ln. 22 to col. 10, ln. 67, and col. 13, lines 23-38; and blocks 324-328 of Fig. 3C —a UE can be configured to determine a target SDT type, i.e., 2-step RACH SDT, 4-step RACH SDT, or CG SDT, after comparing a data volume to be transmitted during RRC_INACTIVE with a data volume threshold(s) corresponding to a target SDT type —for subsequent SDT(s) a target SDT type can be indicated to the network for corresponding SDT type configuration).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi in view of NPL-U’s determination of whether to perform an UL SDT for a particular SDT type, i.e., for 4-step RA, 2-step RA, or CG, to further indicate respective data threshold condition determinations and SDT for a target SDT type, as taught by Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better determine when to initiate an UL SDT via a target SDT type, as recognized by Chen (col. 6, lines 4-19, col. 7, lines 46-66, col. 9, ln. 22 to col. 10, ln. 67, and col. 13, lines 23-38; and blocks 324-328 of Fig. 3C).
With respect to claim 12, Shi in view of NPL-U and Chen teaches the method according to claim 11.
However, Shi does not explicitly teach:
determining the available SDT type from a plurality of target SDT types according to priorities of the plurality of target SDT types.
Chen does teach:
determining the available SDT type from a plurality of target SDT types according to priorities of the plurality of target SDT types (col. 7, lines 46-66, col. 10, lines 8-48, col. 14, lines 4-46, and col. 24-65 —depending on an SDT priority associated with a target SDT type, a particular SDT type of multiple SDT types, i.e., 2-step SDT, 4-step SDT, CG SDT, etc., can be determined to be available for a corresponding UL SDT).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi’s determination of whether to perform an UL SDT for a particular SDT type, i.e., for 4-step RA, 2-step RA, or CG, to further include respective SDT type priority conditions for determining an appropriate target SDT type, as taught by Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better determine how to initiate an UL SDT via a target SDT type, as recognized by Chen (col. 7, lines 46-66, col. 10, lines 8-48, col. 14, lines 4-46, and col. 24-65).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of NPL-U, in further view of US PG Pub. 2021/0337625 A1, Tsai et al. (hereinafter “Tsai”).
With respect to claim 13, Shi in view of NPL-U teaches the method according to claim 7.
However, Shi in view of NPL-U does not explicitly teach:
determining a beam corresponding to a resource configured for the available SDT type; and transmitting the uplink data on the basis of the available SDT type by determining that signal quality of the beam satisfies a requirement.
Tsai does teach:
determining a beam resource configured for an available SDT type; and transmitting uplink data corresponding to the available SDT type by determining a signal quality of the beam resource satisfies a requirement (paras. [0104]-[0105], [0122]-[0123], [0173]-[0175], [0221], and [0271] —a beam resource for a SDT type transmissions can be determined by first measuring an RSRP of an associated SSB/CSI-RS beam resource, and when the measured value meets a corresponding quality threshold criteria, data of an UL SDT can be communicated via a selected SDT type).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi in view of NPL-U’s determination of how to perform an UL SDT for a particular SDT type, with determination of an acceptable beam, based on its measured signal quality, for transmitting UL data during a selected SDT type, as taught by Tsai.
The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure beam quality of a signaling resource was suitable for an identified SDT type communication, as recognized by Tsai (paras. [0104]-[0105], [0122]-[0123], [0173]-[0175], [0221], and [0271]).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of NPL-U, in further view of US PG Pub. 2023/0040049 A1, Fu et al. (hereinafter “Fu”).
With respect to claim 9, Shi in view of NPL-U teaches the method according to claim 8.
However, Shi does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining the data amount thresholds according to the implicit indication comprises: determining transport block size or media access control protocol data unit (MAC PDU) sizes corresponding to uplink configuration information for configuring resources for the candidate SDT types; and determining the data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types according to the transport block sizes or the MAC PDU sizes.
Fu does teach:
determining transport block size corresponding to uplink configuration information for configuring resources for candidate SDT types and determining the data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types according to the transport block sizes (paras. [0076]-[0078], [0083], and [0087]-[0091] —for transmitting small data over a DRB a terminal can implicitly determine data amount thresholds corresponding to 2-step and 4-step RACH based on is respective UL MO-data size, which the Examiner interprets to include TB size corresponding to UL resource configuration information —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi in view of NPL-U’s implicit determination of a data amount threshold with implicitly determining SDT type, i.e., 2-step RACH SDT or 4-step RACH SDT, thresholds based at least in part on configured UL MO-data size, i.e., TB size, as taught by Fu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a UE to implicitly determine data size thresholds per SDT type based on configured UL data size, as recognized by Fu (paras. [0076]-[0078], [0083], and [0087]-[0091]).
With respect to claim 16, Shi in view of NPL-U teaches the method according to claim 15.
However, Shi in view of NPL-U does not explicitly teach:
transmitting uplink configuration information for configuring resources for the candidate SDT types to the terminal, wherein the terminal determines the data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types according to transport block sizes corresponding to the uplink configuration information.
Fu does teach:
a UE receiving UL configuration information for configuring resources for the candidate SDT types to the terminal, wherein the terminal determines the data amount thresholds corresponding to the candidate SDT types according to transport block sizes corresponding to the uplink configuration information (paras. [0076]-[0078], [0083], and [0087]-[0091] —a terminal can receive UL resource configuration information from a BS for performing small data transmission according to SDT type, and subsequently implicitly determine data amount thresholds corresponding to 2-step and 4-step RACH based on its respective UL MO-data size).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shi in view of NPL-U’s implicit determination of a data amount threshold with implicitly determining SDT type, i.e., 2-step RACH SDT or 4-step RACH SDT, thresholds based at least in part on received, configured UL MO-data size, as taught by Fu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a UE to implicitly determine data size thresholds per SDT type based on configured UL data size, as recognized by Fu (paras. [0076]-[0078], [0083], and [0087]-[0091]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2022/0007423 A1, Agiwal: teaches various solutions for performing small data transmission (SDT) based on threshold determinations related to the instant application.
US PG Pub 2022/0078697 A1, Tseng: teaches various solutions for performing small data transmission (SDT) based on threshold determinations related to the instant application.
US PG Pub 2021/0211947 A1, Agiwal: teaches various solutions for performing small data transmission (SDT) based on threshold determinations related to the instant application.
US PG Pub 2022/0022266 A1, Agiwal: teaches various solutions for performing small data transmission (SDT) based on threshold determinations related to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418