DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 18 January 2024.
Claims 25-44 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25-26 and 31-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZTE (3GPP TSG RAN2#112e, 02-13 November, 2020, RE-2009190), as recited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 25, ZTE discloses a UE comprising a transmitter and processor that determines that small data has become available for transmission, wherein the available small data is to be transmitted using periodic resources without a prior scheduling request from the UE (p. 3, last paragraph: “if CG resources are also configured in the cell and are valid, then the UE… shall use those resources as these resources are dedicated to the UE”).ZTE discloses determining one of a plurality of synchronization signal blocks having a signal quality above a signal quality threshold, because CG-SDT selection depends on SSBs whose RSRP exceeds the threshold (p. 3, last paragraph).ZTE further discloses that in case there is no synchronization signal block with the signal quality above the signal quality threshold, the UE operates a time-trigger control mechanism via the T319 timer (p. 7, chapter 3: “failure detection is based on the T319 timer and a similar approach can be adopted for both RA-SDT and CG-SDT”).ZTE also discloses that the transmitter sends the available small data using a random access procedure when no suitable SSB exists (p. 4, chapter 2.3: “Otherwise… the UE shall select RA-SDT procedure and proceed with RA-type selection.”).
Regarding claim 26, ZTE discloses the processor operating a time trigger control mechanism in accordance with a parameter, because T319 may be extended or tuned “in the order of a few seconds” (p. 7, chapter 3).ZTE further discloses allowing continued attempts to transmit using periodic resources by repeatedly checking SSB quality (p. 3, last paragraph; p. 5, chapter 2.3).
Regarding claim 31, ZTE teaches both a timer-based fallback (T319) and a counter mechanism (p. 5, chapter 2.3: “the UE may need to maintain a counter… if the value of the counter reaches a maximum time…”), satisfying the requirement that the processor performs the time trigger control mechanism based on a combination of a timer and a counter.
Regarding claim 32, ZTE teaches that the UE continues attempting periodic-resource transmissions at each periodic occasion while checking SSB quality, and if no SSB satisfies the threshold during the subsequent time window, the UE performs an alternative small-data transmission mechanism (p. 3, last paragraph; p. 4–5).
Regarding claim 33, ZTE discloses periodic-resource association with one SSB, the SSB having the highest RSRP, or multiple SSBs above threshold (p. 3, last paragraph; p. 5).
Regarding claim 34, ZTE teaches determining the T319-based time period in relation to system configuration, round-trip delay requirements, and periodic resource timing (p. 7, chapter 3), corresponding to UE-stored parameters, network-signaled parameters, resource periodicity, and logical-channel requirements.
Regarding claim 35, ZTE teaches that different SSB-RSRP thresholds correspond to different SDT transmission conditions and different transmission parameters inherent in SDT operation (p. 3, last paragraph; p. 5, chapter 2.3).
Regarding claim 36, ZTE teaches selecting higher-priority periodic resources associated with stronger SSB quality and deprioritizing those associated with weaker SSBs (p. 3, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 37, ZTE teaches that cell reselection can be performed immediately while the T319 timer is running (p. 7, chapter 3: “cell reselection is possible whilst T319 is running”).
Regarding claim 38, ZTE teaches that once an SSB above the threshold is detected, the UE determines the periodic resources associated with that SSB and transmits the small data using those periodic resources (p. 3, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 39, ZTE discloses:– the UE operating in inactive state during SDT (p. 2–3 flow),– using beam RS quality (RSRP of SSB),– SSB including PSS, SSS, and PBCH,– small-data-specific and non-small-data-specific random access, including 2-step and 4-step forms (p. 4–5),– and determining signal quality using RSRP/RSRQ/SINR as part of SDT beam quality evaluation.
Regarding claim 40, ZTE discloses determining that small data is available for transmission, where the available small data is transmitted using periodic resources without transitioning to the connected state (p. 3, last paragraph: UE selects CG-SDT if periodic CG resources are valid).ZTE discloses determining one of a plurality of synchronization signal blocks with a signal quality above a signal quality threshold, because CG-SDT depends on SSB RSRP exceeding the required threshold (p. 3, last paragraph).ZTE further discloses that in case there is no synchronization signal block with the signal quality above the threshold, the UE operates a time trigger control mechanism, namely T319, to decide fallback (p. 7, chapter 3).ZTE further discloses transmitting the small data using a random access procedure according to the operated time trigger control mechanism (p. 4, chapter 2.3: “Otherwise… the UE shall select RA-SDT procedure and proceed with RA-type selection.”).
Regarding claim 41, ZTE discloses a base-station system that transmits configuration messages to configure the UE for SDT using periodic resources (p. 2–3 flow description; network sends RRC release message including CG-SDT configuration).ZTE discloses a processor that determines parameters related to fallback timing, including T319-based failure-handling timers, which are operated by the UE when no SSB satisfies the threshold (p. 7, chapter 3).ZTE further discloses a receiver that receives the available small data, either through the CG-SDT periodic resources or through RA-SDT when fallback occurs (p. 4–5).
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 27–30 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over ZTE (3GPP TSG RAN2#112e, 02-13 November, 2020, RE-2009190) in view of APT (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113, R2-2103265), both as recited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 27, ZTE teaches timer-based fallback using T319 (p. 7), and APT teaches detailed timer-operation logic including starting, checking at each periodic occasion, stopping upon success, and fallback upon expiry (APT p. 5, chapter 2.3). APT’s timer-operation refinements would have been an obvious enhancement to ZTE’s T319 behavior.
Regarding claim 28, ZTE teaches adjusting timer duration (p. 7), while APT teaches determining timer values based on pre-configured information, system information, dedicated signaling, periodicity, logical channel type, QoS, and priority (APT p. 5, chapter 2.3). A skilled artisan would incorporate APT’s configuration framework into ZTE’s timer mechanism.
Regarding claim 29, ZTE teaches maintaining and incrementing a counter each time no SSB exceeds the threshold (p. 5, chapter 2.3), while APT teaches explicit counter-operation logic for incrementing, evaluating, stopping, and fallback (APT p. 5). Combining APT’s counter-logic details with ZTE’s counter concept would have been straightforward.
Regarding claim 30, ZTE teaches the concept of a counter threshold determining RA-SDT fallback (p. 5), and APT teaches determining counter thresholds using pre-configured values, system-signaled values, periodicity, QoS, priority, and UE-specific parameters (APT p. 5). A skilled artisan would apply APT’s threshold-determination methods to ZTE’s counter mechanism.
Regarding claim 42, ZTE teaches timer-based fallback via T319 (p. 7), but does not explicitly detail network-signaled timer value configuration. APT teaches transmitting timer configuration messages to the UE, via system information or dedicated signaling (APT p. 5, chapter 2.3).APT also teaches determining timer values based on periodicity and UE-specific operation (APT p. 5). It would have been obvious to combine APT’s configuration mechanism with ZTE’s timer-based fallback to allow network-controlled timer values.
Regarding claim 43, ZTE teaches a counter-based fallback mechanism (p. 5, chapter 2.3: UE maintains a counter and triggers RA-SDT when the counter reaches a maximum).APT further teaches network-signaled configuration of counter thresholds, including dedicated or system-information messages, periodicity-dependent values, and UE-specific settings (APT p. 5). Incorporating APT’s signaling and threshold-determination methods into ZTE’s counter mechanism would have been an obvious improvement.
Regarding claim 44, ZTE teaches fallback when no SSB satisfies the threshold over a period of time and continuing attempts based on available periodic resources (p. 3, last paragraph; p. 5).APT teaches time-period-based SDT fallback logic, including configuring the time period through system information or dedicated messages and basing it on periodicity (APT p. 5). A skilled artisan would combine APT’s explicit configuration of the time period with ZTE’s fallback behavior to allow network-controlled tuning of the UE’s time-period-based determination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM -5:00 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-0734. 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