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 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 20 May 2026, claims 1-3 and 14-16 have been amended, claims 4 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are pending.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5 and 10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that Hong does not disclose “receiving, from a distributed unit (DU) of the base station, a DU-to-CU message that includes a signaling radio bearer (SRB) identifier and an octet string.” Applicant particularly contends that Hong does not disclose an “octet string.” This argument is not persuasive. Hong discloses transmission of messages and associated data between the AU (corresponding to the claimed DU) and the CU, including radio bearer identification information and associated message content (¶¶[0099], [0103], [0129]). An octet is an eight-bit byte, and an octet string is a sequence of such bytes. The digital message/data transmitted between Hong’s network nodes necessarily comprises a sequence of bytes and therefore constitutes an octet string. Anticipation does not require Hong to use the literal term “octet string” where the disclosed digital message/data necessarily has the claimed form.
Applicant further argues that Hong does not disclose “determining, based on the SRB identifier, whether the octet string is a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) or an uplink common control channel (UL-CCCH) message.” Applicant’s argument focuses on Hong ¶[0091] and contends that Hong does not determine whether the message is a PDCP PDU or UL-CCCH message based on the SRB identifier. This argument is not persuasive because Hong’s disclosure is not limited to ¶[0091]. Hong discloses that user-plane data between the AU and CU corresponds to a data packet, such as a PDCP PDU (¶[0072]); that a CCCH message received by the AU from the UE may be transmitted to the CU through a tunnel and/or a message on the CU-AU interface (¶[0099]); and that radio bearer identification information is provided “based on which the central unit separately transmits data according to the radio bearers” (¶[0103]). Hong further discloses that the CU “may separately receive data regarding the corresponding radio bearer, based on … bearer identification information” (¶[0130]) and separately describes the transfer of SRB0 and SRB1 RRC messages between the AU and CU (¶¶[0132]–[0135]). Thus, Hong does not merely disclose SRB identifiers, PDCP PDUs, and UL-CCCH messages as unrelated features; Hong expressly uses bearer identification information to distinguish and separately process data corresponding to the identified radio bearer. Accordingly, Hong discloses the claimed determination based on the SRB identifier.
Applicant’s arguments therefore do not overcome the rejection of claim 5, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose “determining, based on whether the radio resources are configured grant radio resources, whether to transmit the uplink data in an initial uplink radio resource control (RRC) message transfer message or a non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message.” Applicant contends that Kim discloses, at most, an Initial UL RRC Message Transfer (¶[0312]), but does not expressly disclose a non-initial UL RRC Message Transfer, and that Wei does not expressly disclose selecting between initial and non-initial UL RRC Message Transfer based on whether the radio resources are configured-grant resources.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and does not require either Kim or Wei individually to expressly recite the claimed determination in the same terms as the claim. Rather, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Kim and Wei and what those teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Kim discloses the pertinent inactive-state uplink data-transfer architecture and expressly discloses an Initial UL RRC Message Transfer. Specifically, an inactive UE transmits an RRC Resume Request and uplink data to the DU (¶¶[0310]–[0311], Fig. 13, step S1302), after which the DU demultiplexes the received RRC message and uplink data and sends the RRC message toward the CU using an Initial UL RRC Message Transfer (¶[0312], step S1304). Kim thereafter discloses further processing and forwarding of the uplink information between the DU and CU (¶¶[0313]–[0319], steps S1305–S1310). Thus, Kim teaches that the DU selects and performs the appropriate DU-to-CU uplink handling in accordance with the nature and procedural status of the received uplink transmission.
Wei further teaches that small-data transmission while a UE remains in RRC_INACTIVE may employ different radio-resource mechanisms. In particular, Wei discloses small-data transmission using a random access procedure as well as transmission using pre-configured PUSCH resources associated with a configured grant (¶[0095]). Wei therefore teaches that inactive-state uplink data transmission is not limited to a single radio-resource mechanism and that subsequent transmission behavior is determined according to the particular uplink resource mechanism employed.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, applying Wei’s resource-dependent inactive-state small-data transmission to Kim’s DU/CU uplink handling, would have found it obvious to determine the appropriate uplink RRC message-transfer procedure based on whether the received uplink transmission used configured-grant radio resources. Kim already teaches the Initial UL RRC Message Transfer for the initial inactive-state uplink RRC transmission and subsequent DU-to-CU handling, while Wei teaches distinguishing inactive-state uplink transmission behavior according to whether configured-grant or random-access resources are employed. Using the known resource type to select the corresponding uplink RRC transfer procedure would have been a predictable application of Wei’s resource-dependent SDT handling to Kim’s F1 uplink-transfer architecture, thereby permitting the DU to appropriately handle initial and subsequent uplink transmissions without unnecessarily treating transmissions made using different resource-allocation mechanisms identically.
Applicant’s observation that Kim does not expressly label the subsequent transfer as a “non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message” and that Wei does not itself expressly recite the complete claimed determination does not establish nonobviousness. The rejection does not rely on either reference as an anticipation of claim 10. Rather, Kim expressly establishes the Initial UL RRC Message Transfer and the DU/CU uplink-transfer framework, and Wei establishes the configured-grant versus random-access resource distinction and resource-dependent handling of inactive-state small-data transmissions. The claimed use of whether the radio resources are configured-grant resources as the basis for selecting the appropriate initial or non-initial uplink RRC transfer represents the predictable use of these known alternatives according to their established functions.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kim in view of Wei, and the rejection is maintained.
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 (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 and 14–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0086944 A1) (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses A distributed unit (DU) of a base station, comprising processing hardware configured to: receive, from a user equipment (UE) in an inactive state, uplink data via a logical channel; determine, based on the logical channel, whether to transmit the uplink data via a transport network layer protocol stack or in an uplink radio resource control (RRC) message transfer message; and transmit the uplink data to a central unit (CU) in accordance with the determination for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0213579 A1 (“Hong”).
Regarding claim 5, Hong discloses A method, implemented by a central unit (CU) of a base station, for obtaining a radio resource control (RRC) message from an interface message, as Hong discloses a split architecture including a CU configured to generate and process RRC messages based on signaling received from an access unit (AU) (¶¶[0068]–[0071]).
Hong further discloses receiving, from a distributed unit (DU) of the base station, a DU-to-CU message that includes a signaling radio bearer (SRB) identifier and an octet string, as Hong discloses that an interface message between the AU and the CU includes information identifying the radio bearer (e.g., SRB0, SRB1, SRB2) and associated message content, including an uplink RRC message received from a UE (¶¶[0099], [0103], [0129]).
Hong further discloses determining, based on the SRB identifier, whether the octet string is a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) or an uplink common control channel (UL-CCCH) message, as Hong distinguishes signaling transmitted via different signaling radio bearers, including SRB0 associated with common control channel signaling and SRB1/SRB2 associated with dedicated signaling processed via PDCP, thereby determining the type of message based on the associated SRB (¶¶[0072], [0099], [0129]).
Hong further discloses processing, based on the determining, the PDCP PDU or the UL-CCCH message to obtain the RRC message, as Hong discloses that the CU processes received signaling based on the associated bearer and channel to obtain or generate the corresponding RRC message (¶¶[0068]–[0071], [0103]).
Regarding claim 6, Hong discloses The method of claim 5, wherein: the determining includes determining that the octet string is a PDCP PDU; and the processing includes processing the PDCP PDU to obtain an uplink dedicated control channel (UL-DCCH) message, and extracting the RRC message from the UL-DCCH message, as Hong discloses that signaling radio bearers SRB1 and SRB2 carry dedicated signaling processed via PDCP and associated with dedicated control channels, and that the CU processes such PDCP-based signaling to obtain the corresponding RRC message (¶¶[0072], [0099], [0129]).
Regarding claim 8, Hong discloses The method of claim 5, wherein: the determining includes determining that the octet string is a UL-CCCH message; and the processing includes extracting the RRC message from the UL-CCCH message, as Hong discloses that SRB0 is associated with common control channel (CCCH) signaling and that the CU processes CCCH-based signaling to obtain RRC messages (¶¶[0099], [0129]).
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 1-3 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0086944 A1) (“Kim”) in view of Centonza et al. (US 2022/0369174 A1) (“Centonza”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses A method, implemented by a distributed unit (DU) of a base station, for transferring uplink data that includes control plane or non-control plane information to a central unit (CU), as shown in the DU/CU-CP/CU-UP architecture and uplink data handling of Fig. 13.
Kim further discloses receiving, from a user equipment (UE) in an inactive state, the uplink data via a logical channel by disclosing that, upon a connection resumption request for mobile-originated data, the UE transmits an RRC resume request message to the DU, and that user data may be transmitted on DTCH multiplexed with the RRC resume request message on CCCH (¶¶[0310]–[0311], Fig. 13, step S1302).
Kim further discloses determining, based on the logical channel being a dedicated control channel (DCCH) or a dedicated traffic channel (DTCH), whether to transmit the uplink data via a transport network layer protocol stack or in an uplink radio resource control (RRC) message transfer message in part. Kim discloses the DTCH/user-plane branch by expressly disclosing that user data may be transmitted on DTCH (¶[0311]) and that the DU forwards the uplink user data to the CU-UP using user-plane transport information, including UP ID/TNL address information, thereby providing the transport-network-layer path for the DTCH user data (¶¶[0311]–[0319], Fig. 13, steps S1302–S1310).
Kim further discloses transmitting the uplink data to the CU in accordance with the determining by forwarding user-plane data from the DU toward the CU-UP and control-plane/RRC information toward the CU-CP (¶¶[0312]–[0319], Fig. 13, steps S1304–S1310).
Kim does not expressly disclose that, when the logical channel is a DCCH, the determining results in transmitting the uplink data in an uplink RRC message transfer message.
Centonza discloses that the purpose of the UL RRC Message Transfer procedure is to transfer an RRC message as an UL PDCP-PDU to the gNB-CU (US 2022/0369174 A1, ¶[0197]), and that when the gNB-DU receives an RRC message from the radio interface, the gNB-DU sends an UPLINK RRC TRANSFER message to the gNB-CU containing the RRC message (¶[0200]). Centonza further expressly discloses that the “gNB-DU delivers any UL dedicated RRC message over F1 with F1AP UL RRC Message Transfer” (¶[0224]). Table 1 further identifies the RRC-Container of the UL RRC Message Transfer as including an UL-DCCH-Message encapsulated in a PDCP PDU.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Centonza's known handling of UL-DCCH signaling to Kim's DU such that, when the logical channel carrying the received information is DCCH, the DU transmits the RRC/control-plane information in an UL RRC Message Transfer message, while retaining Kim's disclosed transmission of DTCH user-plane data via the transport network layer protocol stack. Both Kim and Centonza concern the transfer of uplink information between a gNB-DU and gNB-CU, and Centonza provides the known F1 procedure for transferring dedicated uplink RRC information carried on DCCH.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the determining includes: when the logical channel is the DTCH, determining to transmit the uplink data via the transport network layer protocol stack, as Kim discloses that user data may be transmitted on DTCH (¶[0311]) and that the DU forwards the uplink user data toward the CU-UP using user-plane transport information, including UP ID/TNL address information (¶¶[0311]–[0319], Fig. 13, steps S1302–S1310).
Regarding claim 3, Centonza further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the determining includes: when the logical channel is the DCCH, determining to transmit the uplink data in a non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message. Centonza expressly distinguishes an INITIAL UL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER from an UL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER (US 2022/0369174 A1, ¶¶[0244]–[0251]). In particular, Centonza separately identifies the INITIAL UL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER (¶¶[0244], [0249]) and the UL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER (¶¶[0250]–[0251]). For the latter, Table 1 identifies the RRC-Container as including an UL-DCCH-Message encapsulated in a PDCP PDU. Thus, Centonza teaches that uplink information carried on DCCH is transferred from the gNB-DU to the gNB-CU using the non-initial UL RRC Message Transfer, as distinguished from the Initial UL RRC Message Transfer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Centonza's known UL-DCCH handling to Kim's DU such that, when the logical channel is DCCH, the DU determines to transmit the uplink RRC information to the CU using the non-initial UL RRC Message Transfer procedure. Both Kim and Centonza concern transfer of uplink information between a gNB-DU and gNB-CU, and Centonza provides the known F1 procedure for transferring dedicated uplink RRC information carried on DCCH.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses a distributed unit (DU) of a base station, corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is thus rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses The distributed unit of claim 14, wherein the processing hardware is further configured to: when the logical channel is a dedicated traffic channel (DTCH), transmit the uplink data via the transport network layer protocol stack for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites subject matter analogous to that recited in claim 3, except in apparatus form, and is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al in view of Da Silva et al (US Pub. 2022/0264518).
Regarding claim 7, Hong discloses The method of claim 6, including processing a PDCP PDU associated with signaling radio bearers to obtain an RRC message, as discussed above. Hong does not disclose wherein processing the PDCP PDU includes retrieving an encrypted data packet from the PDCP PDU, and decrypting the encrypted data packet. Da Silva discloses that a PDCP PDU carrying an RRC Resume message may be encrypted and that the PDCP PDU is decrypted using an RRC encryption key (¶¶[0243]–[0248]) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong to include decryption of encrypted PDCP PDUs as taught by Da Silva in order to enable secure decoding of RRC signaling.
Regarding claim 9, Hong discloses The method of claim 8, including obtaining an RRC message from signaling associated with signaling radio bearers, as discussed above. Hong does not disclose wherein the RRC message is an RRC resume request message, and wherein the method further includes: retrieving a message authentication code for integrity (MAC-I) from the RRC resume request message; and verifying the MAC-I using an integrity algorithm, an integrity key, and integrity parameters. Da Silva discloses that a PDCP PDU carrying an RRC Resume message includes integrity protection, and that integrity is verified by calculating a message authentication code and comparing it with a MAC included in the PDCP PDU using RRC integrity protection keys and algorithms (¶¶[0243]–[0248]) . Thus, it would have been obvious to incorporate integrity verification of RRC messages as taught by Da Silva into the system of Hong in order to ensure authenticity and integrity of RRC signaling.
Claims 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wei et al (US Pub. 2021/0274525).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses A method, implemented by a distributed unit (DU) of a base station, for transferring uplink data that includes control plane or non-control plane information to a central unit (CU), as shown by Kim’s DU/CU-CP/CU-UP architecture and uplink data handling of Fig. 13.
Kim further discloses receiving, from a user equipment (UE) in an inactive state, the uplink data via radio resources, as Kim discloses that, upon a connection resumption request for mobile-originated data, an inactive UE transmits an RRC Resume Request and uplink data to the DU (¶¶[0310]–[0311], Fig. 13, step S1302).
Kim further discloses determining whether to transmit the uplink data in an initial uplink radio resource control (RRC) message transfer message or a non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message in part. Kim expressly discloses the initial-transfer alternative: after receiving and demultiplexing the RRC message and uplink data, the DU transmits the RRC message toward the CU using an Initial UL RRC Message Transfer (¶[0312], Fig. 13, step S1304). Kim thereafter discloses further processing and forwarding of the received uplink information between the DU and CU (¶¶[0313]–[0319], Fig. 13, steps S1305–S1310).
Kim further discloses transmitting the uplink data to the CU in accordance with the determining, as Kim discloses transmitting the received RRC information from the DU toward the CU-CP and forwarding the uplink user-plane information toward the CU-UP through the procedures of Fig. 13 (¶¶[0312]–[0319], steps S1304–S1310).
Kim does not expressly disclose determining, based on whether the radio resources are configured grant radio resources, whether to transmit the uplink data in an initial uplink radio resource control (RRC) message transfer message or a non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message.
Wei discloses small-data transmission while a UE remains in RRC_INACTIVE using different uplink radio-resource mechanisms, including transmission through a random access procedure and transmission using pre-configured PUSCH resources associated with a configured grant (US 2021/0274525 A1, ¶[0095]). Wei further teaches determining subsequent uplink transmission behavior according to the uplink resource mechanism employed. Thus, Wei teaches distinguishing and handling inactive-state uplink transmissions according to whether configured-grant or random-access resources are used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Wei’s resource-dependent inactive-state small-data transmission to Kim’s DU/CU uplink-transfer procedure such that Kim’s DU determines the appropriate uplink RRC message-transfer procedure based on whether the radio resources used for the received uplink transmission are configured-grant radio resources. Kim expressly provides the Initial UL RRC Message Transfer for the initial inactive-state uplink RRC transmission and subsequent DU-to-CU uplink handling, while Wei teaches distinguishing inactive-state uplink transmission behavior according to whether configured-grant or random-access resources are employed. Using the known radio-resource type as the criterion for selecting the corresponding initial or non-initial uplink RRC transfer procedure would have been a predictable application of Wei’s resource-dependent SDT handling to Kim’s F1 uplink-transfer architecture, thereby permitting the DU to appropriately handle uplink transmissions using the different known radio-resource allocation mechanisms.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses wherein the receiving occurs via a common control channel (CCCH) by showing that the RRC resume request message is transmitted on CCCH (Fig. 13, step S1302).
Claims 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0086944 A1) (“Kim”) in view of Wei et al. (US 2021/0274525 A1) (“Wei”) and further in view of Teyeb et al. (US 2023/0328604 A1) (“Teyeb”).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses The method of claim 10, wherein receiving the uplink data packet includes receiving a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) including a logical channel identifier; and determining that the uplink data packet is received via the common control channel (CCCH) prior to the determining in part. Kim discloses receiving uplink data and RRC signaling at the DU, including that user data and RRC signaling may be multiplexed and transmitted via logical channels (¶[0311]) and received at the DU (Fig. 13, step S1302). Kim thus teaches receiving uplink data associated with logical channels.
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the received uplink data packet is a MAC PDU including a logical channel identifier, nor explicitly disclose determining that the uplink data packet is received via CCCH prior to the determining.
Wei discloses uplink transmission procedures in which data is transmitted using different radio resources and associated protocol structures, and that transmission behavior depends on the transmission context (¶[0095]). It is well understood in the art that MAC PDUs include logical channel identifiers (LCIDs) used to identify the logical channel associated with carried data.
Teyeb discloses DU-side handling of uplink RRC messages and logical channel-based processing over the F1 interface (¶[0179]), including handling of messages associated with CCCH.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Kim such that the DU parses a received MAC PDU to obtain the logical channel identifier (LCID) and determine whether the uplink data corresponds to CCCH prior to performing the determination of claim 10, in order to correctly process uplink signaling and data based on logical channel type.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses The method of claim 10, wherein the determining includes: when the uplink data is transmitted in a non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message, including a signaling radio bearer (SRB) identifier of zero in the non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message; and when the uplink data is transmitted in an initial uplink RRC message transfer message, refraining from including an SRB identifier of zero in the initial uplink RRC message transfer message in part. Kim discloses distinguishing between initial uplink RRC message transfer and subsequent uplink handling (¶¶[0312]–[0319]).
Kim does not disclose inclusion or exclusion of an SRB identifier of zero based on whether the message is initial or non-initial.
Teyeb discloses different message formats and handling for initial and non-initial UL RRC message transfer messages (¶[0179]).
Wei discloses distinguishing uplink transmission behavior based on transmission context, including different handling depending on uplink resource type (¶[0095]).
It would have been obvious to configure signaling parameters, including SRB identifier inclusion, differently for initial versus non-initial uplink RRC message transfer messages in order to conform to protocol distinctions and ensure proper interpretation of signaling messages at the receiving entity.
Claims 3 and 16 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0086944 A1) (“Kim”) in view of Centonza et al. (US 2022/0369174 A1) (“Centonza”), and further in view of Lohr et al. (“Lohr”).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Centonza discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the determining includes: when the logical channel is the DCCH, determining to transmit the uplink data in a non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message. As discussed above, Centonza expressly distinguishes an INITIAL UL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER from an UL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER (US 2022/0369174 A1, ¶¶[0244]–[0251]). Centonza separately identifies the INITIAL UL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER (¶¶[0244], [0249]) and the UL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER (¶¶[0250]–[0251]), with Table 1 identifying the RRC-Container of the latter as including an UL-DCCH-Message encapsulated in a PDCP PDU. Thus, Centonza teaches transferring dedicated uplink RRC information carried on DCCH using the UL RRC Message Transfer, as distinguished from the Initial UL RRC Message Transfer.
Lohr further teaches the known relationship between the radio resources used for small data transmission and whether the transmission constitutes an initial or subsequent SDT transmission. Lohr discloses configured-grant small data transmission (CG-SDT) for a UE in RRC_INACTIVE and distinguishes CG-SDT from random-access-based SDT (¶¶[0043]–[0044]). In particular, Lohr expressly teaches that CG-SDT resources are used only for the initial SDT message (¶[0046]) and further describes operation of the CG-SDT procedure (¶[0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Kim's inactive-state uplink data handling using Centonza's known distinction between Initial UL RRC Message Transfer and UL RRC Message Transfer and Lohr's known resource-dependent treatment of initial and subsequent SDT transmissions. Such a combination would predictably permit the DU to select the appropriate F1 uplink RRC transfer procedure according to the nature and status of the uplink transmission, including transmitting dedicated RRC information received on DCCH using the non-initial UL RRC Message Transfer procedure.
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Centonza and Lohr discloses The DU of claim 14, wherein to determine whether to transmit the uplink data via a transport network layer protocol stack or in an uplink RRC message transfer message, the DU is configured to: when the logical channel is the DCCH, determine to transmit the uplink data in a non-initial uplink RRC message transfer message, for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3. Centonza expressly distinguishes Initial UL RRC Message Transfer from UL RRC Message Transfer and identifies the latter as carrying an UL-DCCH-Message (US 2022/0369174 A1, ¶¶[0244]–[0251], Table 1), while Lohr teaches that the resource mechanism used for inactive-state SDT is associated with whether the SDT transmission is initial or subsequent (¶¶[0043]–[0046], [0153]). It would therefore have been obvious to configure Kim's DU accordingly for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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