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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
By the amendment filed _, claims _ have been amended.
Claims _ are now pending.
Claims _ are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant contends that APT does not teach or suggest operating a timer whose running state controls whether configured-grant small data transmission remains available and, when the timer is not running, transmitting the small data using a random access procedure. The Examiner agrees that APT alone does not expressly disclose this limitation. However, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of APT and Tseng, not APT alone. As set forth in the rejection above, APT teaches performing configured-grant small data transmission while in the RRC_INACTIVE state, associating configured-grant resources with synchronization signal blocks having an SS-RSRP above a threshold, and initiating a random access small data transmission procedure when no synchronization signal block satisfies the threshold (APT, p. 3, Figure 2; p. 3, Issue 1; p. 4, Issue 2, Proposal 2, Option 2). Tseng teaches operating a timing advance (TA) timer to control the validity of configured-grant resources, wherein configured-grant resources remain available while the timer is running, are released when the timer expires, and the UE performs transmission using a random access resource when the configured-grant resources are no longer available (Tseng ¶¶ [0013]-[0015], [0283]-[0285]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tseng's timer-controlled configured-grant validity mechanism into APT's configured-grant small data transmission procedure to prevent transmission using stale configured-grant resources while providing a reliable fallback to random access transmission when configured-grant transmission is unavailable. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's remaining arguments are directed to the previous rejection based on ZTE, which has been withdrawn in favor of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Accordingly, those arguments are moot and are not addressed.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 25, 27–31, 37-40, 45 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over APT (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113, R2-2103265), as recited in the IDS, in view of Tseng et al (US Pub. 2022/0078697).
Regarding claim 25, APT discloses a communication apparatus comprising a transceiver and a processor configured to perform configured-grant small data transmission (CG-SDT) and random access small data transmission (RA-SDT) while the communication apparatus remains in an RRC_INACTIVE state (APT, p. 3, Figure 2 (CG-SDT procedure)).
APT further discloses determining to transmit small data using a configured grant resource without the communication apparatus transitioning to a connected state by teaching that, after receiving an RRC Release message including CG-SDT configuration, the UE transitions to the RRC_INACTIVE state and performs configured-grant small data transmission upon arrival of uplink small data without transitioning to RRC_CONNECTED (APT, p. 3, Figure 2 (CG-SDT procedure)).
APT further discloses wherein the configured grant resource is associated with at least one synchronization signal block having a signal quality above a signal quality threshold by teaching that the UE selects a synchronization signal block (SSB) having an SS-RSRP above a threshold and transmits using the configured-grant resource associated with the selected SSB (APT, p. 3, Issue 1).
APT further discloses in case the communication apparatus determines that no synchronization signal block has the signal quality above the signal quality threshold, the communication apparatus transmits the available small data using a random access procedure by teaching that, when none of the synchronization signal blocks has an SS-RSRP above the threshold, the UE releases the configured-grant resource and initiates an RA-SDT procedure (APT, p. 4, Issue 2; Proposal 2, Option 2).
However, APT does not expressly disclose operating a timer and, when the timer is not running, transmitting the available small data using the random access procedure.
Tseng teaches that the validity of configured-grant resources depends on a timing advance (TA) timer. Specifically, Tseng teaches that configured-grant resources remain available while the TA timer is running, that the configured-grant resources are released when the TA timer expires, and that, when the configured-grant resources are no longer available due to expiration of the TA timer, the UE performs transmission using a random access resource (Tseng ¶¶ [0013]-[0015], [0283]-[0285]). Thus, Tseng teaches operating a timer and, when the timer is no longer running, transmitting using a random access procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Tseng's timer-controlled configured-grant validity mechanism into APT's CG-SDT procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to prevent transmission using configured-grant resources after their timing information is no longer valid while providing a reliable fallback to random access transmission when configured-grant transmission is unavailable. The combination merely applies Tseng's known timer mechanism to APT's known CG-SDT fallback procedure, yielding the predictable result of permitting configured-grant transmission while the timer is running and transmitting the available small data using a random access procedure when the timer is not running.
Accordingly, claim 25 is unpatentable over APT in view of Tseng.
Regarding claim 27, APT teaches "starting the timer when the processor determines, for the first time for the transmission of the small data, that there is no synchronization signal block with the signal quality above the signal quality threshold" and "while the started timer has not expired, the processor attempts transmitting the small data using the configured grant resource" by teaching that when none of the synchronization signal blocks satisfies the SS-RSRP threshold, the UE continues attempting configured-grant small data transmission before falling back to RA-SDT (APT, p. 3, Issue 1; p. 4, Issue 2; Proposal 2, Option 2). APT does not expressly disclose controlling the configured-grant transmission attempts with a timer. Tseng teaches that configured-grant resources remain valid while a timing-advance timer is running, that the configured-grant resources are released when the timer expires, and that when no configured-grant resource is available the UE performs transmission using a random-access resource (Tseng ¶¶ [0013]-[0015], [0283]-[0285]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Tseng's timer-controlled configured-grant validity mechanism into APT's configured-grant small data transmission procedure so that configured-grant transmission attempts continue while the timer remains active and the UE falls back to the random-access procedure when the timer expires. Such a combination merely applies Tseng's known timer mechanism to APT's known configured-grant transmission procedure to improve transmission reliability while preventing use of stale configured-grant resources, yielding the predictable result of timer-controlled fallback to random-access transmission.
Regarding claim 28, APT discloses "wherein the value of the timer is configured via a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message." Specifically, APT teaches that the network transmits an RRC Release message including the CG-SDT configuration, which is received by the UE prior to entering the RRC_INACTIVE state and performing configured-grant small data transmission (APT, p. 3, Figure 2 (CG-SDT procedure)). Tseng further teaches a timer governing the validity and use of configured-grant resources (Tseng ¶¶ [0013]-[0015], [0283]-[0285]). Although APT does not expressly identify the timer as one of the configured parameters included in the RRC message, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the timer via the same RRC message used to configure the CG-SDT procedure because the timer is an operational parameter controlling the configured-grant transmission procedure. Configuring such operational parameters through RRC signaling represents a predictable implementation of known RRC configuration techniques and provides centralized network control over UE behavior.
Regarding claim 29, APT discloses "the processor transmits the small data using the configured grant resource based on a counter; increments the counter when it is determined that there is no synchronization signal block with the signal quality above the signal quality threshold; and when the counter reaches a counter threshold, the communication apparatus determines that transmission of the small data has failed." Specifically, APT teaches that when no synchronization signal block satisfies the SS-RSRP threshold, the UE skips the configured-grant transmission and increments a counter, and when the counter reaches a maximum value, the UE releases the configured-grant resource and initiates an RA-SDT procedure (APT, Beam Failure Handling, Option 3, Proposal 2, and Conclusion). Accordingly, APT expressly teaches the claimed counter-based transmission control mechanism.
Regarding claim 30, APT discloses "receives configuration of a Type-1 configured grant for the configured grant resource via a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message." Specifically, APT teaches that the network provides the UE with configured-grant small data transmission configuration in an RRC Release message before the UE enters the RRC_INACTIVE state and performs configured-grant small data transmission (APT, p. 3, Figure 2 (CG-SDT procedure)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the configured-grant configuration received in the RRC message is provided as a Type-1 configured grant, since Type-1 configured grants are established through RRC signaling prior to transmission, unlike Type-2 configured grants, which require dynamic activation. Employing a Type-1 configured grant for the disclosed CG-SDT procedure therefore represents the predictable use of a known configured-grant mechanism for its intended purpose, yielding the expected benefit of enabling autonomous uplink transmission while the UE remains in the RRC_INACTIVE state.
Regarding claim 31, APT in view of Tseng discloses "the communication apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the random access procedure is a contention-based random access procedure." APT teaches the counter-based mechanism for determining when configured-grant transmission should terminate and the UE should initiate an RA-SDT procedure (APT, Beam Failure Handling, Option 3, Proposal 2, and Conclusion). Tseng teaches using a timer to control the validity of configured-grant resources, wherein configured-grant transmission remains available while the timer is running and random-access transmission is performed when the timer expires (Tseng ¶¶ [0013]-[0015], [0283]-[0285]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ both Tseng's timer-based validity mechanism and APT's counter-based retry mechanism so that fallback to the random-access procedure occurs when either the configured-grant validity expires or repeated unsuccessful transmission attempts indicate configured-grant transmission is unlikely to succeed. Using both elapsed time and retry count as termination criteria represents the predictable combination of two known failure-control mechanisms to improve transmission reliability while limiting unnecessary configured-grant transmission attempts. APT further teaches initiating an RA-SDT procedure as the fallback mechanism, and a contention-based random-access procedure was a conventional implementation of RA-SDT in NR systems.
Regarding claim 37, APT discloses "wherein, after an attempt to transmit the small data using the configured grant resource, the communication apparatus determines that a transmission of the small data using the configured grant resource has failed." Specifically, APT teaches beam failure handling in which unsuccessful configured-grant transmission attempts are detected, the configured-grant resource is released, and the UE subsequently initiates an RA-SDT procedure when configured-grant transmission is no longer successful (APT, Beam Failure Handling; p. 4, Proposal 2, Option 3). Accordingly, APT teaches determining that transmission using the configured-grant resource has failed following an attempted configured-grant transmission.
Regarding claim 38, APT discloses "wherein, in case the processor determines that a synchronization signal block has the signal quality above the signal quality threshold: the processor determines the configured grant resource associated with that determined synchronization signal block; and the transmitter transmits the small data using the configured grant resource." Specifically, APT teaches selecting a synchronization signal block having an SS-RSRP above the threshold, determining the configured-grant resource associated with the selected synchronization signal block, and transmitting the small data using the associated configured-grant resource (APT, p. 3, Issue 1; Figure 2 (CG-SDT procedure)).
Regarding claim 39, APT discloses "wherein the communication apparatus is in an inactive state out of a connected state." APT expressly teaches configured-grant small data transmission while the UE remains in the RRC_INACTIVE state without transitioning to the connected state (APT, p. 3, Figure 2 (CG-SDT procedure)).
Claims 40 and 48 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claim 25 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over APT in view of Tseng for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 25.
Regarding claim 45, APT discloses "wherein the synchronization signal block includes one or more synchronization signals including a Primary Synchronization Signal (PSS) and a Secondary Synchronization Signal (SSS), and includes a Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH), wherein the signal quality is determined based on one or more of the synchronization signals of the synchronization signal block." APT teaches selection of synchronization signal blocks based on SS-RSRP measurements, where an NR synchronization signal block comprises the PSS, SSS, and PBCH, and the signal quality is determined from the synchronization signals of the synchronization signal block (APT, p. 3, Issue 1).
Regarding claim 47, APT discloses "wherein the signal quality is a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP)." APT expressly teaches determining whether an SS-RSRP of a synchronization signal block exceeds an RSRP threshold for selecting the associated configured-grant resource (APT, p. 3, Issue 1; p. 4, Issue 2).
Claims 36 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over APT (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113, R2-2103265), as recited in the IDS, in view of Tseng et al (US Pub. 2022/0078697), and further in view of Kim et al (US Pub. 2023/0045501).
Regarding claim 36, APT in view of Tseng teaches the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above. APT-Tseng does not specifically teach "wherein the processor determines the signal quality threshold among a plurality of signal quality thresholds." However, Kim teaches this limitation. Specifically, Kim teaches receiving Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) threshold information from the network for determining whether to initiate an Early Data Transmission (EDT) procedure and whether to apply a normal uplink (NUL) or supplementary uplink (SUL) (Kim, claim 1). Kim further teaches determining whether to trigger an EDT random access procedure or a conventional random access procedure for RRC connection establishment based on the configured RSRP threshold, the measured RSRP, and the transport block size, thereby applying different threshold information to different transmission scenarios (Kim, claim 4; ¶¶ [0104]-[0105]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Kim's threshold-selection technique into the APT/Tseng small-data transmission procedure because selecting an appropriate signal quality threshold from among configured threshold information enables the UE to adapt transmission decisions to different operating conditions while employing a known threshold-based decision technique for its intended purpose, thereby predictably improving transmission reliability.
Regarding claim 46, APT in view of Tseng teaches the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above. APT-Tseng does not specifically teach "wherein the random access procedure is a first random access procedure or a second random access procedure, wherein the first random access procedure is specific for transmission of the small data and the second random access procedure is not specific for transmission of the small data, and the second random access procedure is used when the communication apparatus is not configured with the first random access procedure, wherein one or more of radio resources and preambles for the first random access procedure is different from the second random access procedure." However, Kim teaches this limitation. Specifically, Kim teaches an Early Data Transmission (EDT) random access procedure for transmission of small data (Kim, claims 1 and 4). Kim further teaches a conventional random access procedure for RRC connection establishment, thereby distinguishing a random access procedure specific to small data transmission from a random access procedure that is not specific to small data transmission (Kim, claim 4). Additionally, Kim teaches that the EDT procedure utilizes dedicated random access preamble information for both normal uplink (NUL) and supplementary uplink (SUL), thereby teaching radio resources and preambles that differ from those used by the conventional random access procedure (Kim, claim 2). Although Kim does not expressly disclose using the conventional random access procedure specifically when the UE is not configured with the EDT procedure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the conventional random access procedure when EDT-specific configuration is unavailable because the conventional random access procedure serves as the default network access mechanism in the absence of dedicated EDT configuration. Incorporating Kim's distinction between EDT-specific and conventional random access procedures into the APT/Tseng system would have predictably enabled operation regardless of whether dedicated small-data transmission resources were configured while utilizing known random access procedures according to their intended purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights