DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office Action is in response to the Reply filed on July 24, 2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (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.
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 1-4, 8-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0132600 (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0172300 (Newly Cited, hereinafter “Chandrashekhar”).
Kim discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 1 and 11, a method, implemented by a distributed unit (DU) of a base station that also includes a central unit (CU), of handling small data transmission (SDT) with a user equipment (UE) (see at least Fig. 9A, Fig. 10A, and paragraph 272, DU), the DU comprising processing hardware (see at least Fig. 15 and paragraph 367, the DU includes a processor, a memory, and a transceiver) and being configured to perform the method comprising:
receiving, from the UE while the UE is in an inactive state, a first message including uplink data via a logical channel, the uplink data including control plane or non-control plane information (see at least Fig. 9A, step S906, Fig. 10A, S1010, and paragraphs 83, 85, 285, and 312, the DU receives an RRC resume request message and uplink user data from a UE via DTCH, which is a logical channel, while the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE state, where the uplink user data corresponds to user plane information, which is non-control plane information).
Kim does not explicitly disclose determining, based on the logical channel with which the uplink data is received, whether to transmit the uplink data to a control plane of the CU (CU-CP) or a user plane of the CU (CU-UP) and transmitting the uplink data to either the CU-CP or the CU-UP in accordance with the determining.
However, in an analogous art, Chandrashekar discloses or suggests determining, based on the logical channel with which the uplink data is received, whether to transmit the uplink data to a control plane of the CU (CU-CP) or a user plane of the CU (CU-UP) (see at least Fig. 6, step 617, and paragraph 87, the DU identifies the correct CU-UP using Logical Channel ID present in the SDT UP PDU) and transmitting the uplink data to either the CU-CP or the CU-UP in accordance with the determining (see at least Fig. 6, step 617, and paragraph 87, the DU sends the SDT including a packet containing its SDT-I-RNTI to its default CU-UP, where the limitation requires transmission to either one of the CU-CP or the CU-UP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the CU-UP identification technique, as taught by Chandrashekar, in to the invention of Kim in order to allow the DU to forward the SDT UP packet to the CU-UP without waiting for establishment of UE context over F1 interface.
Kim, as modified by Chandrashekar, further discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 2 and 12, the first message is an initial uplink radio resource control (RRC) message transfer message (see at least paragraphs 287 and 314, the DU sends an initial UL RRC message transfer message including the RRC resume request message);
regarding claims 3 and 13, determining to transmit the uplink data to the CU-CP when the logical channel is a first logical channel, and to transmit the uplink data to the CU-UP when the logical channel is a second logical channel (see at least paragraphs 285, 291, 312, and 318, claim 1 recites “transmitting the uplink data to either the CU-CP or the CU-UP” and, thus, only one of the above limitations is required; based on the uplink user data being associated with the DTCH, the DU forwards the UL data to a CU-UP);
regarding claims 4 and 14, the first logical channel is a dedicated control channel (DCCH) and the second logical channel is a dedicated traffic channel (DTCH) (see at least paragraphs 285, 291, 312, and 318, claim 1 recites “transmitting the uplink data to either the CU-CP or the CU-UP” and, thus, only one of the above limitations is required; based on the uplink user data being associated with the DTCH, the DU forwards the UL data to a CU-UP);
regarding claims 8 and 18, the determining whether to transmit the uplink data to the CU-CP or the CU-UP includes determining that the logical channel is the second logical channel (see at least paragraphs 285, 291, 312, and 318, the uplink user data is ciphered and transmitted on a DTCH multiplexed with the RRC resume request on CCCH), wherein the transmitting includes transmitting the uplink data to the CU-UP (see at least Fig. 9A, S918, Fig. 10A, S1022, and paragraphs 291 and 318, the DU forwards the UL data to a CU-UP), and wherein the method further comprises and the DU is further configured to:
receive a UE context request message from the CU-CP (see at least Fig. 9A, S914, Fig. 10A, S1018, and paragraphs 289 and 316, receiving a UE context setup request message including the stored F1 UL TEIDs to create the UE context in the DU); and
after reception of the UE context request message and before transmission of the uplink data to the CU-UP, transmit a UE context response message to the CU-CP (see at least Fig. 9A, S916, Fig. 10A, S1020, and paragraphs 290 and 317, the DU transmits a UE context setup response message before transmitting the uplink data to the CU-UP);
regarding claims 9 and 19, the first message includes the uplink data and an uplink radio resource control (RRC) message (see at least Fig. 9A, S906, Fig. 10A, S1010, the message includes RRC resume request and uplink data); and
the method further comprises transmitting the uplink RRC message to the CU-CP before receiving the UE context request message (see at least Fig. 9A, S910, Fig. 10A, S1014, and paragraphs 287 and 314, the DU transmits an initial UL RRC message transfer including RRC Resume request to the CU-CP before receiving the UE context setup request message); and
regarding claims 10 and 20, the transmitting the uplink data occurs via an F1-C or F1-U interface (see at least paragraphs 234, 235, 291, and 318, the DU forward the UL data to the CU-UP, where the interface between the DU and the CU-UP is an F1-U interface according to 3GPP standards).
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chandrashekhar, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0057201 (hereinafter “Godin”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kim, as modified by Chandrashekhar, discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except the DU configured to determine that the logical channel is the first logical channel, and wherein the uplink data is transmitted to the CU-CP.
However, in an analogous art, Godin discloses or suggests the DU configured to determine that the logical channel is the first logical channel, and wherein the uplink data is transmitted to the CU-CP (see at least Fig. 6, step 606, and paragraphs 73, 121, and 122, the gNB-DU forwards the RRC message and the uplink data to the CU-CP, where the gNB-DU is a logical entity and, therefore, the logical channel between the UE and the gNB-DU corresponds to the claimed first logical channel).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Godin above in to the invention of Kim, as modified by Chandrashekhar, in order to improve resource utilization by transmitting the RRC message and the uplink data together.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kim, as modified by Chandrashekhar and Godin, discloses or suggests that the DU is further configured to receive a UE context request message from the CU-CP after transmission of the uplink data to the CU-CP (see at least Fig. 9A, S914, Fig. 10A, S1018, and paragraphs 289 and 316, receiving a UE context setup request message including the stored F1 UL TEIDs to create the UE context in the DU after transmitting the RRC resume request to the CU-CP).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kim discloses the DU transmitting an initial UL RRC message transfer including RRC Resume request (see at least Fig. 9A, S910, Fig. 10A, S1014, and paragraphs 287 and 314) but Kim does not explicitly disclose that the first message includes the uplink data and an uplink radio resource control (RRC) message and the transmitting the uplink data to the CU-CP includes transmitting to the CU-CP a message that includes the uplink data and the uplink RRC message.
However, in an analogous art, Godin discloses or suggests determining that the logical channel is the first logical channel and the transmitting includes transmitting the uplink data to the CU-CP (see at least Fig. 6, step 606, and paragraphs 121 and 122, the gNB-DU forwards the RRC message and the uplink data to the CU-CP, where the logical channel between the gNB-DU and the CU-CP corresponds to the claimed first logical channel).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Godin above in to the invention of Kim in order to improve resource utilization by transmitting the RRC message and the uplink data together.
Conclusion
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 Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 09/21/2026
Prosecution Insights