Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/682,838

CONFIGURATION INFORMATION SENDING METHOD AND APPARATUS, CONFIGURATION INFORMATION OBTAINING METHOD AND APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 09, 2024
Examiner
MAGLOIRE, ELISABETH BENOIT
Art Unit
2471
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
BEIJING XIAOMI MOBILE SOFTWARE CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
707 granted / 791 resolved
+31.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
819
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 791 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 9 February 2024, having claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-21, and 24-25 (claims 3, 6, 9, 22-23, and 26-27 were cancelled) and drawing figures 1-10. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Specification 3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The abstract is too short because it has less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 4. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5. 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 24 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “configuration information suitable for the terminal to perform” in lines 4-5. The word “suitable” renders the claim vague and indefinite because it implies something being appropriate or even optional. The word “suitable” must be deleted to render the claim affirmative. The word “for” is sufficient to make it clear to the reader that the configuration information will be used to perform the SDT transmission. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 6. 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 (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 1-2, 4-5, 12-17, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 2021/0337625 A1). For claim 1, Tsai discloses a configuration information sending method, performed by a base station (Fig 2A, base station 204), comprising: sending a Radio Resource Control (RRC) release message to a terminal ([0201] UE receives RRC release message from base station), wherein the RRC release message carries configuration information ([0201] the RRC release message comprises CG configuration information) suitable for the terminal to perform Small Data Transmission (SDT) in an inactive state ([0203] while in an RRC inactive state, UE performs SDT transmission using CG configuration information). For claims 2 and 14, Tsai discloses the configuration information comprises at least one of: Logical Channel (LC) configuration information ([0135] UE may be configured with an LCP mapping restriction for a logical channel); Buffer Status Report (BSR) configuration information; or Power Headroom Report (PHR) configuration information. For claim 4, Tsai discloses the LC configuration information comprises Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) mapping restriction ([0135] UE may be configured with an LCP mapping restriction for a logical channel), and the LCP mapping restriction comprises at least one of: an allowed configured grant list (allowedCG-List); or an allowed configured grant list for small data transmission (allowedCG-List for SDT) ([0137] allowedSCSlist). For claim 5, Tsai discloses the LCP mapping restriction further comprises at least one of: an allowed Sub-Carrier Spacing list (allowedSCS-List); a maximum Physical Uplink Shared Channel duration (maxPUSCH- Duration); configured grant typel allowed (configuredGrantTypel Allowed) [0137]; allowed serving cells (allowedServingCells) [0137]; or an allowed physical layer priority index (allowedPHY-Prioritylndex). For claim 12, Tsai discloses when the RRC release message is used to indicate the terminal to enter the inactive state, the RRC release message carries the configuration information ([0203] while in an RRC inactive state, UE performs SDT transmission using CG configuration information).. For claim 13, Tsai discloses a configuration information obtaining method, performed by a terminal (Fig 2A, UE 202), comprising: receiving a Radio Resource Control (RRC) release message sent by a base station ([0201] UE receives RRC release message from base station); and obtaining configuration information ([0201] the RRC release message comprises CG configuration information) for performing small data transmission (SDT) in an inactive state from the RRC release message ([0203] while in an RRC inactive state, UE performs SDT transmission using CG configuration information). For claim 15, Tsai discloses using the configuration information when performing the SDT in the inactive state ([0203] while in an RRC inactive state, UE performs SDT transmission using CG configuration information). For claim 16, Tsai discloses releasing the configuration information when entering a connected state or an idle state ([0044] UE transitions from RRC connected state to RRC idle state after performing the RRC release procedure). For claim 17, Tsai discloses when the configuration information comprises the LC configuration information, the terminal stores LC configuration information received in a connected state [0159]. For claim 24, Tsai discloses a communication apparatus (Fig 4, wireless node 400), comprising: a processor (Fig 4, processor 426); and a memory (Fig 4, memory 428) for storing computer programs; wherein the computer programs are executed by the processor is configured to perform the configuration information sending method of claim 1 (Fig 2A, UE 202 performs the method steps of claim 1). For claim 25, Tsai discloses a communication apparatus (Fig 4, wireless node 400), comprising: a processor (Fig 4, processor 426); and a memory (Fig 4, memory 428) for storing computer programs; wherein the processor is configured to: receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) release message sent by a base station ([0201] UE receives RRC release message from base station); and obtain configuration information ([0201] the RRC release message comprises CG configuration information) for performing small data transmission (SDT) in an inactive state from the RRC release message ([0203] while in an RRC inactive state, UE performs SDT transmission using CG configuration information). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. 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 (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 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. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2021/0337625 A1) in view of ZTE et al., The Issues on User Plane Common Aspects for SDT, August 16, 2021 (reference disclosed by applicant) For claim 7, Tsai does not expressly disclose the BSR configuration information comprises at least one of: a periodic buffer status report timer (periodicBSR-Timer); or a retransmission buffer status report timer (retxBSR-Timer). ZTE, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the BSR configuration information comprises at least one of: a periodic buffer status report timer (periodicBSR-Timer); or a retransmission buffer status report timer (retxBSR-Timer) (page 1, section 2, periodicBSRTimer is one of the parameters of the BSR configuration information for the SDT procedure on the UE side). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use BSR periodic timer in the BSR configuration information to perform SDT in the communication network of Tsai at the time of the invention. For claim 8, ZTE discloses when it is determined that the SDT of the terminal supports a scheduling request, the BSR configuration information further comprises: a logical channel scheduling request delay timer (logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer) (page 1, section 2, the logicalchannelDR-DelayTimer is applied for SR transmission for the SDT procedure). Allowable Subject Matter 8. Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 9. Claims 18-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET. 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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. /ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604233
Quality Management for Wireless Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604160
DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING PUSH-TO-TALK MESSAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598542
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANAGING USER EQUIPMENT IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598509
METHOD FOR ALIGNMENT OF MINIMIZATION DRIVE TEST AND QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE MEASUREMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592793
SN SYNCHRONIZATION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTICAST BROADCAST SERVICE, DEVICE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 791 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month