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 .
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 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 51-54, 57-60, 69, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LG Electronics (Rapporteur), 3GPP TSG-RAN2, R2-2104395, hereinafter LG Electronics.
Regarding claim 51, LG Electronics teaches an apparatus (See Section 3.7, line 1, UE) comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine initiation for an uplink small data transmission for the apparatus (See section 3.7, line 1: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission));
trigger a report, where the report is triggered by the determined initiation for the small data transmission (See Section 3.7, lines 1-2: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission), then PHR (power headroom report) is triggered);
determine at least one predetermined condition (See Section 3.7, Row 11 of the table, Company: NEC: PHR (Power Headroom Report) is beneficial for the subsequent transmission but not needed for one-shot SDT, therefore can be cancelled if the UL grant can accommodate the data (predetermined condition) but not able to accommodate the PHR plus its header. Further, Row 17 of the table, company-ASUSTek: if PHR (Power Headroom Report) is supported, PHR is only needed if there is subsequent transmission. If there is no subsequent transmission (predetermined condition), PHR can be cancelled);
based upon the at least one predetermined condition, determine to cancel the report triggered by the initiation for the small data transmission (See Section 3.7, Row 11 of the table, Company: NEC: PHR (Power Headroom Report) is beneficial for the subsequent transmission but not needed for one-shot SDT, therefore can be cancelled……… Further, Row 17 of the table, company-ASUSTek: if PHR (Power Headroom Report) is supported, PHR is only needed if there is subsequent transmission. If there is no subsequent transmission (predetermined condition), PHR can be cancelled); and
transmit the uplink small data transmission (See section 3.7, line 1: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission).
Regarding claim 52, LG Electronics teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the report comprises a power headroom report (See section 3.7, line 1: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission)……then, for SDT, PHR is triggered).
Regarding claim 53, LG Electronics teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises the apparatus not expecting a subsequent transmission after the uplink small data transmission (See Section 3.7, Row 17 of the table, company-ASUSTek: if PHR (Power Headroom Report) is supported, PHR is only needed if there is subsequent transmission. If there is no subsequent transmission (predetermined condition), PHR can be cancelled).
Regarding claim 54, LG Electronics teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the apparatus is configured to determine that a subsequent transmission after the uplink small data transmission is expected (See Section 3.7, Row 6 of the table, company-Huawei, HiSilicon: as subsequent data transmission are supported for SDT, PHR is needed. We can check further whether any modifications for triggering conditions are needed, e.g. to avoid sending it when there is no subsequent data).
Regarding claim 57, LG Electronics teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the report comprises a buffer status report (See Section 3.9, line 21 the table: InterDigita……The SR procedure in MAC can be reused as is to trigger a RA-SR when there is no PUCCH configured, e.g. once a new BSR (Buffer Status Report) is triggered for SDT data arrival).
Regarding claim 58, LG Electronics teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 57, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine whether to cancel another report based upon the at least one predetermined condition (See Section 3.7, Row 11 of the table, Company: NEC: PHR (Power Headroom Report) is beneficial for the subsequent transmission but not needed for one-shot SDT, therefore can be cancelled……… Further, Row 17 of the table, company-ASUSTek: if PHR (Power Headroom Report) is supported, PHR is only needed if there is subsequent transmission. If there is no subsequent transmission (predetermined condition), PHR can be cancelled).
Regarding claim 59, LG Electronics teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 58, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to cancel the report when the apparatus has determined that a subsequent transmission is not expected after the uplink small data transmission and after the apparatus determined that a buffer status report has been cancelled (Paragraph [0589-0589]….. if UE determines there is no subsequent data, the UE may cancel the triggered assistance information/report……..if the UE determines there is no subsequent data, the UE may trigger/generate/transmit the BSR with a buffer size of zero bytes).
Regarding claim 60, LG Electronics teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 58, where the another report comprises a power headroom report (See Section 3.7, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 69, LG Electronics teaches a method comprising: determining initiation for an uplink small data transmission for a user equipment (See section 3.7, line 1: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission));
triggering a report, where the report is triggered by the determined initiation for the small data transmission (See Section 3.7, lines 1-2: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission), then PHR (power headroom report) is triggered);
determining at least one predetermined condition (See Section 3.7, Row 11 of the table, Company: NEC: PHR (Power Headroom Report) is beneficial for the subsequent transmission but not needed for one-shot SDT, therefore can be cancelled if the UL grant can accommodate the data (predetermined condition) but not able to accommodate the PHR plus its header. Further, Row 17 of the table, company-ASUSTek: if PHR (Power Headroom Report) is supported, PHR is only needed if there is subsequent transmission. If there is no subsequent transmission (predetermined condition), PHR can be cancelled);
based upon the determined at least one predetermined condition, determining to cancel the report triggered by the initiation for the small data transmission (See Section 3.7, Row 11 of the table, Company: NEC: PHR (Power Headroom Report) is beneficial for the subsequent transmission but not needed for one-shot SDT, therefore can be cancelled……… Further, Row 17 of the table, company-ASUSTek: if PHR (Power Headroom Report) is supported, PHR is only needed if there is subsequent transmission. If there is no subsequent transmission (predetermined condition), PHR can be cancelled); and
transmitting the uplink small data transmission (See section 3.7, line 1: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission).
Regarding claim 70, LG Electronics teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine information of at least one predetermined condition to cause a user equipment, after an uplink small data transmission has been determined to be initiated (See Section 3.7, lines 1-2: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission), then PHR (power headroom report) is triggered. See Section 3.7, Row 11 of the table, Company: NEC: PHR (Power Headroom Report) is beneficial for the subsequent transmission but not needed for one-shot SDT, therefore can be cancelled if the UL grant can accommodate the data (predetermined condition) but not able to accommodate the PHR plus its header. Further, Row 17 of the table, company-ASUSTek: if PHR (Power Headroom Report) is supported, PHR is only needed if there is subsequent transmission. If there is no subsequent transmission (predetermined condition), PHR can be cancelled),
to perform at least one of:
cancel a report triggered by the initiation for the small data transmission (See Section 3.7, Row 11 of the table, Company: NEC: PHR (Power Headroom Report) is beneficial for the subsequent transmission but not needed for one-shot SDT, therefore can be cancelled……… Further, Row 17 of the table, company-ASUSTek: if PHR (Power Headroom Report) is supported, PHR is only needed if there is subsequent transmission. If there is no subsequent transmission (predetermined condition), PHR can be cancelled), or
prevent triggering of the report to accompany the small data transmission (not selected); and
transmit the information to the user equipment(See section 3.7, line 1: upon initiation resume of connection resume for SDT (small data transmission).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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 55 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (Rapporteur), 3GPP TSG-RAN2, R2-2104395, hereinafter LG Electronics in view of Tsai et al. (US 2022/0210798).
Regarding claim 55, LG Electronics fails to teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises both the report and another report are triggered and the another report being sent with the uplink small data transmission, where: the report comprises a power headroom report and the another report comprises a buffer status report, or the report comprises the buffer status report and the another report comprises the power headroom report.
However, in related art, Tsai teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises both the report and another report are triggered and the another report being sent with the uplink small data transmission, where: the report comprises a power headroom report and the another report comprises a buffer status report, or the report comprises the buffer status report and the another report comprises the power headroom report (Paragraph [0517] teaches for SDT, UE may send an assistance information/report (e.g., an indication, a BSR, and/or a PHR) to NW to indicate whether there is subsequent data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Tsai’s teaching about both the report and another report are triggered and the another report being sent with the uplink small data transmission, where: the report comprises a power headroom report and the another report comprises a buffer status report, or the report comprises the buffer status report and the another report comprises the power headroom report with LG Electronics’s invention in order to make efficient usage of the network's radio resources.
Regarding claim 56, the combination of LG Electronics and Tsai teach all the claimed elements in claim 55. In addition, Tsai teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 55, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to cancel the report relative to the another report for the uplink small data transmission based upon whether (might or might not) a subsequent transmission is expected by the apparatus (Paragraph [0589]…. if UE determines there is no subsequent data (whether a subsequent transmission is expected), the UE may cancel the triggered assistance information/report).
Claims 61 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (Rapporteur), 3GPP TSG-RAN2, R2-2104395, hereinafter LG Electronics in view of Phuyal et al. (US 2020/0245334).
Regarding claim 61, LG Electronics fails to teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises a condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is allowed.
However, in related art, Phuyal teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises a condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is allowed (Paragraph [0040]….. Such techniques may allow for a single message data transmission from a UE. Such a single message transmission may have reduced overhead relative to other techniques for uplink transmissions of relatively small amounts of data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Phuyal’s teaching about where the at least one predetermined condition comprises a condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is allowed with LG Electronics’s invention in order to minimize latency and improve reliability.
Regarding claim 63, LG Electronics fails to teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises a condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is supported by the apparatus.
However, in related art, Phuyal teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises a condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is supported by the apparatus (Paragraph [0040]….. Such techniques may allow for a single message data transmission from a UE. Such a single message transmission may have reduced overhead relative to other techniques for uplink transmissions of relatively small amounts of data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Phuyal’s teaching about where the at least one predetermined condition comprises a condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is supported by the apparatus with LG Electronics’s invention in order to minimize latency and improve reliability.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (Rapporteur), 3GPP TSG-RAN2, R2-2104395, hereinafter LG Electronics in view of Phuyal et al. (US 2020/0245334), and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 2022/0210798).
Regarding claim 62, the combination of LG Electronics and Phuyal teach all the claimed elements in claim 61. In addition, Phuyal teaches such techniques may allow for a single message data transmission from a UE. Such a single message transmission may have reduced overhead relative to other techniques for uplink transmissions of relatively small amounts of data (Paragraph [0040], but does to specifically teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 61, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive an indication regarding the condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is allowed by a system information block signaling.
However, in related art, Tsai teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 61, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive an indication regarding the condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is allowed (Paragraph [0075]) by a system information block signaling (Paragraphs 0009, 0072, 0122; Claims 13 and 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use teaching about where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive an indication regarding the condition where a single-shot uplink small data transmission is allowed (Paragraph [0075]) by a system information block signaling with LG Electronics’s and Phuyal’s invention in order to reduce UL data transmission latency and UE power consumption (See Tsai, Paragraph [0102]).
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (Rapporteur), 3GPP TSG-RAN2, R2-2104395, hereinafter LG Electronics in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2022/0182948).
Regarding claim 64, LG Electronics fails to teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises when an available power headroom for a serving cell is above a threshold.
However, in related art, Raghavan teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one predetermined condition comprises when an available power headroom for a serving cell is above a threshold (Paragraph [0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Raghavan’s teaching about where the at least one predetermined condition comprises when an available power headroom for a serving cell is above a threshold with LG Electronics’s invention in order to enhance performance of the wireless device.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (Rapporteur), 3GPP TSG-RAN2, R2-2104395, hereinafter LG Electronics in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0225247).
Regarding claim 65, LG Electronics fails to teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to prevent cancelling of the report when the apparatus applies a power backoff to meet maximum permissible exposure.
However, in related art, Huang teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to prevent cancelling of the report when the apparatus applies a power backoff to meet maximum permissible exposure (Paragraph [0122 and 0131] P: If mpe-Reporting is configured this field indicates the applied power backoff to meet MPE requirements, as specified in TS 38.101-2 [15]. The MAC entity shall set the P field to 0 if the backoff is less than P_MPR_0 as specified in TS 38.133 [11] and set the P field to 1 otherwise). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Huang’s teaching about where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to prevent cancelling of the report when the apparatus applies a power backoff to meet maximum permissible exposure with LG Electronics’s invention in order to achieve desired performance and keep the gain relatively constant across operating conditions.
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (Rapporteur), 3GPP TSG-RAN2, R2-2104395, hereinafter LG Electronics in view of Yamada et al. (US 2012/0294270).
Regarding claim 66, LG Electronics fails to teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to cancel the report based upon the determination to cancel the report.
However, in related art, Yamada teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to cancel the report based upon the determination to cancel the report (Paragraph [0168]… In the case where an uplink grant is sufficient to accommodate all pending data available for transmission, but not sufficient to accommodate a BSR and a subheader thereof, any triggered BSR is canceled (based on determination of not sufficient to accommodate a BSR). In the case where a BSR is included in a MAC PDU for transmission, any triggered BSR is canceled). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Yamada’s teaching about where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to cancel the report based upon the determination to cancel the report with LG Electronics’s invention in order to enhance/improve communication between the communication system.
Claims 67 and 68 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (Rapporteur), 3GPP TSG-RAN2, R2-2104395, hereinafter LG Electronics in view of Xue et al. (US 2017/0142703).
Regarding claim 67, LG Electronics fails to teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive instructions from a network entity to be used to at least partially determine the at least one predetermined condition.
However, in related art, Xue teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 51, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive instructions from a network entity to be used to at least partially determine the at least one predetermined condition (Paragraphs [0027-0028]…… receiving a message including pre-configuration information for D2D discovery message transmission; determining to operate as a synchronization reference UE when an instruction is received from a base station or a predefined condition is satisfied; in a transmission resource determined based on the pre-configuration information, transmitting a synchronization signal used to acquire time and frequency synchronization and transmitting system information including transmission timing information of a discovery message). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Xue’s teaching about where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive instructions from a network entity to be used to at least partially determine the at least one predetermined condition with LG Electronics’s invention in order to enable a UE to perform a certain operation.
Regarding claim 68, the combination of LG Electronic and Xue teach all the claimed elements in claim 67. In addition, Xue teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 67, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive the instructions through at least one of a system information block signaling (Paragraphs [0027, 0028, 0076, 0161-0162, 0168-0169]) or a dedicated radio resource control signaling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watts et al. (US 2026/0020079), Yue et al. (US 2024/0373276), Marupaduga (US Patent #11,711,737), Zhang et al. (US 2022/0369327), Tsai et al. (US 2022/0304100), Vitthaladevuni et al. (US 2022/0284267), Koskela et al. (US 2021/0320710), Wei et al. (US 2021/0274525), Tsai et al. (US 2021/0243777), Shih et al. (US 2021/0211994), Selvaganapathy (US 2021/0007148), Jian (US 2020/0305093), Phuyal et al. (US 2020/0245334), Deenoo et al. (US 2020/0154326), Tabet et al. (US 2014/0098693), and Yamada et al. (US 2012/0307767).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132
Prosecution Insights