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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For Claims 1 and 16 (last lines), the antecedent basis of “the data” is not clear. If this is the unavailable data, then the claim should be amended to indicate this.
For Claims 3 and 17 (last two lines), “a determination” appears to have antecedent basis in the claim.
For Claims 3 and 17 (last lines), “whether” should possibly be corrected to ---that---.
For Claims 5 and 19, it is not clear whether “a last grant” is an earlier instance of the previously recited grant.
For Claims 5 and 19, “a last transmission is performed” should probably be corrected to ---a last transmission was performed---.
For Claims 6-8, “the second period threshold does not have antecedent basis in Claim 4. Applicant may need to combine claims 4 and 5 or add dependent claims relating to the second period threshold and depending from claim 5.
For Claim 11, “a third indication of a time” should probably be corrected to ---a fourth indication of a time---.
For Claim 12, “a last transmission is received” should probably be corrected to ---a last transmission was received---.
For Claim 13, “a time period” has antecedent basis in the claim.
For Claim 13, “the grant” has multiple possible antecedents.
Remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11, 15-17, and 20, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0289995) in view of Mo (US 2023/0156814).
For Claims 1 and 16, Lin teaches a method and a first device comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code (see paragraph 53: hardware); wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to:
determine whether data is available for transmission on a grant, the grant being allocated for a data transmission procedure established between the first device and a second device (see paragraphs 69, 331, 344-345);
in accordance with a determination that the data is unavailable, determine whether the transmission on the grant is to be skipped (see paragraphs 344-345); and
in accordance with a determination that the transmission on the grant is not to be skipped, perform the transmission on the grant to the second device, the transmission conveying a predetermined type of information without conveying the data (see paragraphs 344-345).
Lin as applied above is not explicit as to, but Mo teaches the grant being allocated for small data transmission (see paragraphs 20, 27).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to implement the SDT grant skipping process of Mo as known and shown in Li. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of allowing a device to retain transmission resources even when the resources are not immediately in use.
For Claim 10, Lin teaches a second device comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code (see paragraph 53: hardware); wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the second device to:
establish a data transmission procedure with a first device (see paragraph 351);
receive, from the first device on a grant allocated for the data transmission procedure, a transmission conveying a predetermined type of information without conveying data (see paragraphs 69, 344-345); and
cause the data transmission procedure to be maintained based on the reception of the transmission on the grant (see paragraph 69: skipping is allowed, grant is maintained even if skipped).
Lin as applied above is not explicit as to, but Mo teaches establish and maintain a small data transmission procedure with a first device (see paragraphs 20, 26-27, 41). Mo also teaches maintaining the small data transmission procedure based on the reception of the transmission on the grant (see paragraphs 172, 181)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to implement the SDT grant skipping process of Mo as known and shown in Li. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of allowing a device to retain transmission resources even when the resources are not immediately in use.
For Claim 2, Lin further teaches the first device, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to: in accordance with a determination that the transmission on the grant is to be skipped, cause the transmission on the grant to be skipped (see paragraphs 344-345).
For Claims 3, 15, and 17, Lin as modified by Mo above further teaches the first device, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to determine whether the transmission on the grant is to be skipped by:
receiving, from the second device, enablement information indicating whether skipping of at least one grant is enabled for the first device during the small data transmission procedure (see paragraph 69); and
in accordance with a determination that the enablement information indicates that skipping of the at least one grant is enabled for the first device and a determination that the data is unavailable, determining whether the transmission on the grant is to be skipped (see paragraphs 344-345).
For Claims 9, 11, and 20, Lin further teaches the first device, wherein the predetermined type of information conveyed in the transmission on the grant comprises at least one of the following:
a first indication indicating that subsequent data is expected to be communicated during the small data transmission procedure,
a second indication of at least one radio bearer or at least one logical channel on which the subsequent data is expected to be communicated,
a third indication of an amount of the subsequent data expected to be communicated,
a fourth indication of a time when the subsequent data is expected to be communicated,
a buffer status report (see paragraph 69),
a power headroom report, and
a transport block with dummy bits.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 8, 14, and 18, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0289995) and Mo (US 2023/0156814) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Li et al. (WO2017/134578).
For Claims 4 and 18, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Li teaches the first device, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to determine whether the transmission on the grant is to be skipped by:
determining that subsequent data is expected to be communicated after a first time period during the small data transmission procedure (see p. 12 line 20 to p. 13 line 6);
determining whether the first time period exceeds a first period threshold for grant skipping (see p. 12 line 20 to p. 13 line 6); and
in accordance with a determination that the first time period exceeds the first period threshold, determining that the transmission on the grant is to be skipped (see p. 12 line 20 to p. 13 line 6).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a timer as in Li when determining the length of validity of a grant as in Lin and Mo (see Mo, paragraphs 195-196: threshold number of failures or skips). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a measure that may be more appropriate for the mobility of the device.
For Claims 6 and 14, Lin as applied above is not explicit as to, but Mo teaches the first device, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to: receive, from the second device, configuration information indicating at least one of a first threshold and a second threshold (see paragraphs 136-155: various thresholds including threshold number of skips).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide thresholds as in Mo when implementing the method of Lin and Mo. The motivation would be to provide a way to release resources that have been determined to be unused.
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Li teaches the first period threshold or the second period threshold (see p. 12 line 20 to p. 13 line 6).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a timer as in Li when determining the length of validity of a grant as in Lin and Mo (see Mo, paragraphs 195-196: threshold number of failures or skips). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a measure that may be more appropriate for the mobility of the device.
For Claim 8, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Li teaches the first device, wherein at least one of the first period threshold and the second period threshold is defined as a threshold number of time units or a threshold number of grant occasions (see p. 12 line 20 to p. 13 line 6).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a timer as in Li when determining the length of validity of a grant as in Lin and Mo (see Mo, paragraphs 195-196: threshold number of failures or skips). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a measure that may be more appropriate for the mobility of the device.
Claim(s) 5, 12-13, and 19, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0289995) and Mo (US 2023/0156814) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Shukair et al. (US 2019/0320491).
For Claims 5, 12, and 19, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Shukair teaches the first device, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to determine whether the transmission on the grant is to be skipped by:
determining whether a second time period from a last grant on which a last transmission is performed during the small data transmission procedure to the grant exceeds a second period threshold for grant skipping (see paragraphs 83, 88, 102, 101-1-2, 111: max delay, known at network side); and
in accordance with a determination that the second time period exceeds the second period threshold, determining that the transmission on the grant is not to be skipped (see paragraphs 9, 7, 102, 111, 114: transmission prior to exceeding delay threshold; delay threshold known at network side).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to avoid exceeding the threshold as in Shukair when managing resources as in Lin and Mo. The motivation would be to avoid releasing resources at either end of the connection.
For Claim 13, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Shukair teaches the second device, wherein a time period from the first grant to the grant exceeds the second period threshold (see paragraphs 102, 111, 114).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to avoid exceeding the threshold as in Shukair when managing resources as in Lin and Mo. The motivation would be to avoid releasing resources at either end of the connection.
Claim(s) 7, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0289995), Mo (US 2023/0156814), and Li et al. (US 2019/0320491) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2024/0023097, hereinafter Lin ‘237).
For Clam 7, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Lin ‘237 teaches the first device, wherein at least one of the first period threshold and the second period threshold is set to be specific to the first device or specific to a radio bearer or a logical channel on which the small data transmission procedure is established (see paragraphs 40, 43: radio bearer on which SDT is allowed, threshold amount of SDT data).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thresholds are specific to the radio bearer as in Lin ‘237 when using thresholds to manage a small data transmission resources as in Lin and Mo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to set thresholds accordingly with the reasonably predictable result of adjusting parameters to match the channel conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeon et al. (US 2021/0410181) teaches a method for managing SDT grants to inactive devices. Tang et al. (US 2019/0029033) teaches a method for allowing a UE to ignore a grant if necessary.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 12/8/2025
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466