Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/684,018

COMMUNICATION FOR SMALL DATA TRANSMISSION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 15, 2024
Examiner
ANDERSON, MARGARET MARIE
Art Unit
2412
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
30 granted / 44 resolved
+10.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
79
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
71.7%
+31.7% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 44 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status This paper is responsive to the application filed February 15, 2024, claiming priority to Application PCT/CN2021/114296 filed August 24, 2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on September 27, 2024, May 5, 2025, and February 12, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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 1-17, 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. 20240214862 to Da Wang and Gang Wang (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat Pub. 20240163960 to Da Wang and Lin Liang and Gang Wang (hereinafter Wang II). Regarding claim 1, Wang in view of Wang II teaches A first device (Wang Fig. 14 device 1400) comprising: at least one processor; (Wang teaches in para. [0217] device includes a processor 1410) and at least one memory including computer program code; (Wang teaches in para. [0217] the device 1400 includes a memory 1410 that stores program 1430) the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to: transmit, to a second device, a resume request for small data transmission; (Wang para. [0058] teaches terminal sending a resume request including SDT data “data transmitted using a SRB or DRB configured with SDT”) and receive, from the second device, a message for rejecting the resume request for a part of data transmissions, said part including small data transmission. (Wang para. [0133] teaches receiving an RRCReject message wherein the terminal aborts an SDT procedure in response to an NAS layer requesting transition to RRC Connected state. Examiner interprets RRCReject as a message for rejecting the resume request. Further, since the only data being rejected is SDT data, the “part of the data” includes small data transmission.) Although Wang teaches that the SDT data is a part that includes SDT data, it Wang does not explicitly identify non-SDT data. In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Wang II teaches for a part of data transmissions. (Wang II teaches in para. [0262], that after an SDT rejection, “events, include but not are limited to, cell re-selection; expiry of failure detection timer of SDT; maximum number of retransmissions is reached in RLC; receiving RRC reject message during SDT; abortion of connection resuming procedure by upper layers; receiving RAN paging during SDT; arriving of non-SDT data/signaling at the terminal device 210 side; RSRP requirement is not fulfilled during SDT; lower layer (such as, MAC layer) indicates the abortion of SDT, e.g. due to no suitable resource.” Therefore, a non-SDT data part is included in transmissions when SDT is terminated.) Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Wang II teaches The first device of claim 1, wherein the message for rejecting the resume request indicates that the resume request is rejected for small data transmission,. (Wang teaches in para. [0133] that the RRCReject is only for an SDT procedure.) Wang does not specifically teach but not for non-small data transmission. In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Wang II teaches but not for non-small data transmission that after an SDT rejection, in para. [0262] “events, include but not are limited to, cell re-selection; expiry of failure detection timer of SDT; maximum number of retransmissions is reached in RLC; receiving RRC reject message during SDT; abortion of connection resuming procedure by upper layers; receiving RAN paging during SDT; arriving of non-SDT data/signaling at the terminal device 210 side; RSRP requirement is not fulfilled during SDT; lower layer (such as, MAC layer) indicates the abortion of SDT, e.g. due to no suitable resource.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Wang and Wang II to teach non-SDT data after a rejection of SDT. Each of Wang and Wang II are in the field of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Wang and Wang II in order to support transmissions arriving during an inactive state during an RRC connection release when a terminal device is performing an SDT with a network device as taught in Wang II, para. [0093]. Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches The first device of claim 1, wherein the message for rejecting the resume request comprises first information indicating that the resume request is rejected for small data transmission. (Wang teaches in para. [0133] “terminal device 110 may abort the SDT procedure in response to receiving a message (e.g., RRCReject message) for rejecting the transmission”. Examiner interprets the RRCReject message as first information.) Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches The first device of claim 1, wherein the first device is caused to receive the message by: receiving second information indicating that the resume request is rejected for one or more predetermined types of small data transmissions. (Wang teaches in para. [0130] regarding SDT types “If neither suitable RA-based SDT resource nor CG-based SDT resource is available, the MAC layer should indicate to the RRC layer of the terminal device 110 to cancel the SDT duel to no suitable SDT resource is available.” Wang para. [0130] further teaches that the MAC layer will select to perform RA-based SDT or CG-based SDT, which Examiner interprets as different SDT types.) Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches The first device of claim 1, wherein the first device is caused to receive the message by: receiving third information indicating at least one of the following: first wait time for small data transmission, second wait time for one or more predetermined types of small data transmissions, or third wait time for non-small data transmission. (Wang teaches in para. [0132] that the terminal device receives a message that indicates “an expiration of a first timer related to the transmission of the uplink data in the inactive state” and the terminal device aborts the SDT procedure.) Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches The first device of claim 4, wherein the one or more predetermined types of small data transmissions comprise at least one of the following: random access based small data transmission, or configured grant based small data transmission. (Wang para. [0130] teaches that the MAC layer will select to perform RA-based SDT or CG-based SDT.) Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches The first device of claim 1, wherein the first device is caused to receive the message by: receiving fourth information indicating whether the first device goes to an idle state or remains in an inactive state. (Wang teaches in paras. [0122] that “if the UL grant cannot accommodate the data of CCCH message, the MAC layer shall indicate to the RRC layer. Accordingly, the RRC layer of the terminal device 110 may perform SDT abortion procedure or go to an idle mode, and then initiates request for on-demand information. As such, the on-demand information (e.g., SI/PI) is able to be obtained by the terminal device 110 even if it is triggered during SDT procedure.” Therefore, if the choice of SDT termination or idle state is an indication of whether the terminal goes into an idle state or inactive state. Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches The first device of claim 1, wherein the first device is further caused to: in response to receiving the message, initiate a non-small data transmission procedure for transmitting data to the second device. (Wang teaches in para. [0122] sending on-demand SI/PI information after performing an SDT abortion procedure. “As such, the on-demand information (e.g., SI/PI) is able to be obtained by the terminal device 110 even if it is triggered during SDT procedure.”) Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches The first device of claim 8, wherein the data comprises at least data that was rejected to be transmitted using the small data transmission. (Wang teaches in para. [0133] “In some examples, the terminal device 110 may abort the SDT procedure in response to further uplink data arriving from at least one radio bearer not supporting a transmission in the inactive state (i.e., not supporting SDT).” Examiner interprets the further data as data rejected to be transmitted using the small data transmission.) Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches The first device of claim 8, wherein the data comprises data transmitted with the resume request. (Wang teaches in para. [0058] that the uplink data UL data is transmitted using an RRC resume request). Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches The first device of claim 1, wherein the first device is caused to receive the message by: receiving fifth information indicating that the resume request is rejected for a predetermined type of a radio bearer associated with the first device. (Wang teaches in para. [0130] that radio bearer configured to support SDT (which Examiner interprets as a predetermined type) receiving a resume request wherein the amount of data is below a threshold may cancel the SDT.) Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches The first device of claim 1, wherein the first device is a terminal device, and the second device is a network device. (Wang teaches terminal device 110 and network device 120 in Fig. 5: PNG media_image1.png 716 1001 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches A second device (Wang network device 120 shown in Fig. 5) comprising: at least one processor; (Wang Fig. 14 processor 1410) and at least one memory including computer program code; (Wang Fig. 14 memory 1420) the at least one memory and the computer program code (Wang teaches in para. [0218] and Fig. 14 program 1430 with computer software) configured to, receive, from a first device, a resume request for small data transmission; (Wang para. [0058] teaches terminal sending to a network device a resume request including SDT data “data transmitted using a SRB or DRB configured with SDT”) and transmit, to the first device, a message for rejecting the resume request for a part of data transmissions, said part including small data transmission. (Wang para. [0133] teaches receiving an RRCReject message wherein the terminal aborts an SDT procedure in response to an NAS layer requesting transition to RRC Connected state. Examiner interprets RRCReject as a message for rejecting the resume request. Further, since the only data being rejected is SDT data, the “part of the data” includes small data transmission.) Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches The second device of claim 13, wherein the message for rejecting the resume request indicates that the resume request is rejected for small data transmission, but not for non-small data transmission. (Wang teaches in para. [0133] that the RRCReject is only for an SDT procedure.) Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches The second device of claim 13, wherein the message for rejecting the resume request comprises first information indicating that the resume request is rejected for small data transmission. (Wang teaches in para. [0133] “terminal device 110 may abort the SDT procedure in response to receiving a message (e.g., RRCReject message) for rejecting the transmission”. Examiner interprets the RRCReject message as first information.) Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches The second device of claim 13, wherein the second device is caused to transmit the message by: transmitting second information indicating that the resume request is rejected for one or more predetermined types of small data transmissions. (Wang teaches in para. [0130] regarding SDT types “If neither suitable RA-based SDT resource nor CG-based SDT resource is available, the MAC layer should indicate to the RRC layer of the terminal device 110 to cancel the SDT duel to no suitable SDT resource is available.” Wang para. [0130] further teaches that the MAC layer will select to perform RA-based SDT or CG-based SDT, which Examiner interprets as different SDT types.) Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches The second device of claim 13, wherein the second device is caused to transmit the message by: transmitting third information indicating at least one of the following: first wait time for small data transmission, second wait time for one or more predetermined types of small data transmissions, or third wait time for non-small data transmission. (Wang teaches in para. [0132] that the terminal device receives a message that indicates “an expiration of a first timer related to the transmission of the uplink data in the inactive state” the terminal device aborts the SDT procedure.) Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches A method of communication, comprising: transmitting, at a first device and to a second device, a resume request for small data transmission; (Wang para. [0058] teaches terminal sending a resume request including SDT data “data transmitted using a SRB or DRB configured with SDT”) and receiving, from the second device, a message for rejecting the resume request for a part of data transmissions, said part including small data transmission. (Wang para. [0133] teaches receiving an RRCReject message wherein the terminal aborts an SDT procedure in response to an NAS layer requesting transition to RRC Connected state. Examiner interprets RRCReject as a message for rejecting the resume request. Further, since the only data being rejected is SDT data, the “part of the data” includes small data transmission.) Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches The method of claim 22, wherein the message for rejecting the resume request indicates that the resume request is rejected for small data transmission, but not for non-small data transmission. (Wang teaches in para. [0133] that the RRCReject is only for an SDT procedure.) Regarding claim 26, Wang teaches The method of claim 22, wherein receiving the message comprises: receiving third information indicating at least one of the following: first wait time for small data transmission, second wait time for one or more predetermined types of small data transmissions, or third wait time for non-small data transmission. (Wang teaches in para. [0132] that the terminal device receives a message that indicates “an expiration of a first timer related to the transmission of the uplink data in the inactive state” the terminal device aborts the SDT procedure.) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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. /MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 14, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593332
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INSTRUCTING TO TRANSMIT DATA, COMMUNICATION DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574958
ENERGY DETECTION THRESHOLD FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12549232
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12532256
AP GROUPING FOR FAST MOVING ROAMING ALONG A PATHWAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12526221
Communication Method, UP Device, and CP Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
68%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+18.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 44 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