DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 10 June 2024.
Claims 1-30 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 § 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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US Pub. 2022/0232659) in view of Tsai et al (US Pub. 2023/0121314) and further in view of Wang et al (US Pub..2026/0164466).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses An apparatus for communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: by disclosing a UE having memory and processing circuitry configured to perform wireless communication procedures, including small data transmission while operating in an RRC inactive state.
Kim further discloses receive, from the network entity, one or more configurations for the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT in a radio resource control (RRC) message, the RRC message comprising at least an RRC release message in part by disclosing that the UE receives an RRC Release message including suspend configuration and SDT-related configuration for performing small data transmission while in RRC_INACTIVE (Kim ¶¶[0397]–[0407]).
Kim further discloses transition to an RRC inactive state by disclosing that the UE transitions to or remains in RRC_INACTIVE based on the RRC Release message and associated suspend configuration (Kim ¶¶[0397]–[0407]).
Kim further discloses transmit, to the network entity, a common control channel (CCCH) message in a MO-SDT transmission while in the RRC inactive state by disclosing that a UE in RRC_INACTIVE transmits a CCCH SDU including an RRC request message and uplink data during a small data transmission procedure. Kim further discloses that the RRC request message may be an RRCResumeRequest transmitted on CCCH (Kim ¶¶[0305]–[0306], [0397]–[0401]).
However, Kim does not expressly disclose transmit, to a network entity, a capability indication representing support of mobile-originated small data transmission (MO-SDT) and mobile-terminated small data transmission (MT-SDT), nor does Kim expressly disclose that the configurations received in the RRC Release message include configurations for both MO-SDT and MT-SDT.
Tsai discloses UE capability reporting for SDT. Specifically, Tsai discloses that the UE receives a UECapabilityEnquiry and transmits a UECapabilityInformation message indicating whether the UE supports SDT mechanisms, including RA-SDT and CG-SDT (Tsai ¶¶[0326]–[0337], [0397]–[0401]). Tsai therefore teaches transmitting, from the UE to the network, a capability indication representing UE support for small data transmission.
Wang discloses both MO-SDT and MT-SDT and teaches that an RRC Release message includes configuration information supporting MT-SDT, which the UE stores before entering RRC_INACTIVE. Wang further discloses determining MT-SDT operation based on whether the UE supports MT-SDT and on UE capability and configuration information (Wang ¶¶[0003]–[0009], [0069]–[0075], [0085]–[0089], [0119]–[0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kim’s SDT-capable UE to transmit the SDT capability information taught by Tsai and to indicate support for both MO-SDT and MT-SDT as taught by Wang. Doing so would have enabled the network to determine which SDT procedures were supported by the UE and to provide the appropriate MO-SDT and MT-SDT configurations.
It further would have been obvious to include Wang’s MO-SDT and MT-SDT configurations in Kim’s RRC Release message because Kim already uses an RRC Release message to configure SDT operation and transition the UE to RRC_INACTIVE. Including configurations for both transmission directions would have predictably enabled the UE to perform mobile-originated and mobile-terminated small data procedures while remaining in RRC_INACTIVE, thereby reducing signaling overhead and avoiding unnecessary transition to RRC_CONNECTED.
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Kim in view of Tsai and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses "receive, from the network entity, a response to the CCCH message." Kim teaches that after transmitting a CCCH SDU during SDT while in RRC_INACTIVE, the UE receives a response from the network, which may include an RRC message and/or downlink data (Kim ¶¶0397-0407; Figs. 28-29).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses "transmit a subsequent UE specific SDT transmission based on receiving the response." Kim teaches subsequent SDT transmissions after receiving the network response while the UE remains in RRC_INACTIVE (Kim ¶¶0402-0407; Figs. 28-35).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses "the response is multiplexed with a downlink control information (DCI), an RRC message, or a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) triggering the MT-SDT for the UE" in part because Kim teaches that the response comprises an RRC message (Kim ¶¶0397-0407).
However, Kim does not expressly disclose triggering MT-SDT.
Wang teaches transmitting a paging message comprising an indication that MT-SDT is to be performed and subsequent signaling initiating the MT-SDT procedure (Wang ¶¶0003-0009, 0316-0322, 0342-0344).
It would have been obvious to incorporate Wang's MT-SDT triggering signaling into Kim's response procedure so that the response initiating subsequent SDT also supports MT-SDT operation.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses "the response comprises downlink control information (DCI) scheduling a subsequent uplink (UL) transmission or a CCCH message retransmission of the UE." Kim teaches that downlink control information schedules subsequent uplink transmissions, including PUSCH transmissions following SDT procedures (Kim ¶¶0201-0202, 0402-0407). Tsai further teaches subsequent SDT transmissions using configured-grant or dynamically scheduled uplink resources (Tsai ¶¶0356, 0384).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses "the RRC release message is associated with a suspend configuration information element (IE)." Kim teaches an RRC Release message comprising SuspendConfig used to suspend the RRC connection and transition the UE to RRC_INACTIVE (Kim ¶¶0402-0403).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses "the one or more configurations for the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT comprises radio resource allocation for downlink (DL) or uplink (UL) messages belonging to control or data planes." Wang teaches that an RRC Release message configures radio bearers and radio resources supporting MT-SDT while the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE (Wang ¶¶0007-0009, 0085-0089, 0140-0152). Kim further teaches SDT using both control-plane signaling (CCCH) and user-plane data transmission (Kim ¶¶0397-0407).
It would have been obvious to configure both uplink and downlink radio resources supporting control-plane and user-plane SDT communications.
Regarding claim 8, Tsai discloses "the one or more configurations for the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT comprises one or multiple downlink reference signal (DL RS) resources for at least one of one or more reference signal received power (RSRP) measurements, a timing advance (TA) validation, a link quality evaluation, beam management, power control, positioning, one or more tracking loops, a quasi-colocation, or a spatial relation." Tsai teaches SDT configuration including reference-signal resources, RSRP measurements, beam management, timing-advance validation, quasi-colocation, and spatial relation information for maintaining SDT operation in RRC_INACTIVE (Tsai ¶¶0355-0366, 0389-0392).
It would have been obvious to include these known NR radio-resource configurations within the MO-SDT and MT-SDT configuration to improve radio-link maintenance and mobility performance.
Regarding claim 9, Tsai discloses "the one or more configurations for the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT comprises one or more data volume thresholds for an initiation of the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT." Tsai teaches configuring a data-volume threshold for determining whether SDT is initiated instead of another transmission procedure (Tsai ¶¶0339, 0354, 0361, 0370).
Regarding claim 10, Tsai discloses "the one or more configurations for the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT comprises a reference signal received power (RSRP) threshold associated with selecting the MO-SDT, the MT-SDT, or non-SDT, a beam management, a link quality evaluation, or a timing advance (TA) validation, and a value of the RSRP threshold depends on a type of procedures and one or more UE capabilities associated with the UE." Tsai teaches RSRP thresholds for SDT operation, beam management, timing-advance validation, and UE capability reporting through UECapabilityInformation (Tsai ¶¶0326-0337, 0355-0366, 0389-0401).
It would have been obvious to configure the RSRP thresholds according to the applicable SDT procedure and the UE capabilities reported by the UE.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses "the one or more configurations for the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT include downlink resources in an initial or dedicated downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP) for the MT-SDT and the MO-SDT, and wherein the one or more configurations for the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT further include uplink resources in an initial or dedicated uplink (UL) BWP for the MO-SDT and the MT-SDT." Kim teaches initial, default, and dedicated BWPs for downlink and uplink communication (Kim ¶¶0112-0125). Tsai further teaches SDT configuration for configured-grant resources, search spaces, and CORESETs within SDT-configured bandwidth resources (Tsai ¶¶0099-0105, 0329-0337).
It would have been obvious to configure MO-SDT and MT-SDT resources within the initial or dedicated BWPs to support inactive-state SDT.
Regarding claim 12, Tsai discloses "the initial or dedicated DL BWP and the initial or dedicated UL BWP are configured based on a UE type or one or more UE capabilities associated with the UE." Tsai teaches reporting UE capability information indicating supported SDT procedures, including RA-SDT, CG-SDT, and multiple configured-grant capabilities through UECapabilityInformation (Tsai ¶¶0005-0011, 0326-0337, 0397-0401). Kim teaches configuring BWPs according to UE operating capability (Kim ¶¶0112-0125).
It would have been obvious to configure the BWPs according to the UE's reported SDT capabilities so that the configured bandwidth resources are compatible with the UE's supported inactive-state SDT procedures.
Assuming claims 13 and 25 are parallel method and computer-readable medium claims, respectively, only the statutory-class differences need to be addressed.
Regarding claim 13, Kim, Tsai, and Wang disclose the method limitations substantially as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Kim teaches the claimed method performed by a UE, including receiving an RRC Release message comprising SDT-related configuration, transitioning to an RRC_INACTIVE state, and transmitting a CCCH message in an MO-SDT transmission while in the RRC_INACTIVE state (Kim ¶¶0305-0306, 0397-0407). Tsai teaches transmitting UE capability information indicating SDT capabilities (Tsai ¶¶0326-0337, 0397-0401). Wang teaches MO-SDT and MT-SDT configuration in an RRC Release message (Wang ¶¶0003-0009, 0085-0089, 0140-0152). Therefore, claim 13 is unpatentable over Kim in view of Tsai and further in view of Wang for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Kim, Tsai, and Wang disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium limitations substantially as discussed above with respect to claim 1. It would have been obvious to store computer-executable instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by one or more processors of a UE, cause the UE to perform the method discussed above with respect to claim 13. Accordingly, claim 25 is unpatentable over Kim in view of Tsai and further in view of Wang for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claims 14–24 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 2–12, respectively, and are similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2–12.
Claims 26–30 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 2, 3, 6, 11, and 12, respectively, and are similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2, 3, 6, 11, and 12.
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 LUAT PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30 AM - 6:30 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 571-27. 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