Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to a communication received on August 6, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments received August 6, 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. However a new grounds of rejection has been provided below as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorani et al (US 2020/0084655, hereinafter “Fiorani”) in view of Kim et al (US 2023/0422105, hereinafter “Kim”) and in further view of Chen (US 2024/0023042, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Fiorani teaches 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), the method comprising:
communicating with the UE in accordance with a first DU configuration (see ¶96, the UE is communicating with the DU on a user place with a configured bearer/DRB);
communicating with the UE in accordance with the first DU configuration (see ¶58 DU monitors the activity of the UE).
Fiorani teaches the CU working with the DU to reconfigure the UE context and DU configuration (¶¶72-77), however Fiorani does not explicitly indicate receiving, from the CU, a CU-to-DU message requesting a SDT DU configuration for the UE (while communicating with the UE in accordance with the first DU configuration); and transmitting a DU-to-CU message including the SDT DU configuration to the CU in response to receiving the CU-to-DU message, wherein the SDT DU configuration includes a configured grant (CG) configuration for CG-SDT and a time alignment timer value for CG-SDT.
Kim teaches a system for enabling small data transmissions in an inactive UE, wherein after the CU determined a UE is inactive (¶239, CU determines that the UE is inactive based upon received information), receiving, from the CU, a CU-to-DU message requesting a SDT DU configuration for the UE (¶240, wherein the CU transmits to the DU a query for the configuration of SDT resources); and
transmitting a DU-to-CU message including the SDT DU configuration to the CU in response to receiving the CU-to-DU message (¶¶240-241, wherein UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST is a CU-to-DU message, and in response the DU may transmitted the UE CONTEXT MODIFICACTION RESPONSE including the CG-SDT resource configuration) the SDT DU configuration includes a configured grant (CG) configuration for CG-SDT (see ¶241 and ¶244, wherein the SDT DU configuration includes CG-SDT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Kim’s suggestion of enacting SDT configurations in inactive UEs to improve Fiorani’s inactivity monitor system. The combination would allow the SDT configuration signaling taught in Kim to be added to Fiorani’s process of allowing a UE to go inactive by the DU monitoring the UE. The result would ensure a UE when going inactive with SDT enabled would be able to get configured to keep SDT configuration with the gNB without having to return to a connected state.
Fiorani, as improved by Kim, does not explicitly indicate that the SDT DU configuration includes a time alignment timer values for a CG-SDT.
Chen teaches a SDT configuration system (see ¶53), wherein the SDT configuration includes a CG SDT (¶57) and time alignment procedure for the CG SDT (¶54 and ¶¶60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the application to use Chen’s suggestion of configuring a timer alignment for the UE’s SDT configuration, the combination would ensure the SDT DU configuration (DU is managing the UE’s SDT configuration in Kim) would include the current timer alignment values since that information is included in the CG-SDT configuration. One would be motivated to do so to ensure the timer alignment value is managed in the inactive state for the UE to avoid timing misalignment (see Chen ¶¶9-10).
Regarding claim 8, Fiorani teaches a method, implemented by a central unit (CU) of a base station that also includes a distributed unit (DU), of handling small data transmission (SDT) with a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
communicating with the UE via the DU and in accordance with a first CU configuration (¶54, wherein the CU services the UE to provide a bearer);
communicating with the UE via the DU in accordance with the first CU configuration (¶57, wherein the CU-UP monitors the UE activity).
Fiorani teaches the CU working with the DU to reconfigure the UE context and DU configuration (¶¶72-77), however Fiorani does not explicitly teach transmitting, to the DU, a CU-to-DU message requesting a SDT DU configuration for the UE; and receiving a DU-to-CU message including the SDT DU configuration from the DU in response to the CU-to DU message, wherein the SDT DU Configuration includes a configured grant (CG) configuration for CG-SDT and a time alignment timer value for CG-SDT.
Kim teaches a system for enabling small data transmissions in an inactive UE, wherein after the CU determined a UE is inactive (¶239, CU determines that the UE is inactive based upon received information), transmitting a DU-to-CU message including the SDT DU configuration to the CU in response to receiving the CU-to-DU message (¶¶240-241, wherein UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST is a CU-to-DU message, and in response the DU may transmitted the UE CONTEXT MODIFICACTION RESPONSE including the CG-SDT resource configuration) the SDT DU configuration includes a configured grant (CG) configuration for CG-SDT (see ¶241 and ¶244, wherein the SDT DU configuration includes CG-SDT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Kim’s suggestion of enacting SDT configurations in inactive UEs to improve Fiorani’s inactivity monitor system. The combination would allow the SDT configuration signaling taught in Kim to be added to Fiorani’s process of allowing a UE to go inactive by the DU monitoring the UE. The result would ensure a UE when going inactive with SDT enabled would be able to get configured to keep SDT configuration with the gNB without having to return to a connected state.
Fiorani, as improved by Kim, does not explicitly indicate that the SDT DU configuration includes a time alignment timer values for a CG-SDT.
Chen teaches a SDT configuration system (see ¶53), wherein the SDT configuration includes a CG SDT (¶57) and time alignment procedure for the CG SDT (¶54 and ¶¶60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the application to use Chen’s suggestion of configuring a timer alignment for the UE’s SDT configuration, the combination would ensure the SDT DU configuration (DU is managing the UE’s SDT configuration in Kim) would include the current timer alignment values since that information is included in the CG-SDT configuration. One would be motivated to do so to ensure the timer alignment value is managed in the inactive state for the UE to avoid timing misalignment (see Chen ¶¶9-10).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Fiorani, as improved by Kim and Chen, teaches the method of claims 1 and 15, further comprising: transmitting the SDT DU configuration to the UE (¶¶244-248, wherein the DU can provided the RRCRelease message with the CG-SDT information to the UE), and communicating with the UE in accordance with the SDT DU configuration (see Kim, ¶¶244-248).
The teachings are combined under the same rationale as described in the rejection to claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Fiorani, as improved by Kim and Chen, teaches the method of claims 2 and 16.
Kim further teaches wherein the CU-to-DU message is a first CU-to-DU message, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the CU, a second CU-to-DU message including the SDT DU configuration and a SDT CU configuration, wherein transmitting the SDT DU configuration to the UE includes transmitting the SDT DU configuration and the SDT CU configuration to the UE (¶244, wherein the CU transmits to the DU the CONTEXT RELEASE COMMAND with the SDT indicator).
The teachings are combined under the same rationale as described in the rejection to claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Fiorani, as improved by Kim and Chen, teaches the method of claims 3 and 17.
Kim additionally teaches wherein the first CU-to-DU message is a UE context modification request message and the DU-to-CU message is a UE context modification response message (¶¶240 and 241).
The teachings are combined under the same rationale as described in the rejection to claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Fiorani, as improved by Kim and Chen, teaches the method of claims 1 and 15, while communicating with the UE in accordance with the first DU configuration, monitoring for data inactivity of the UE; and detecting data inactivity of the UE (Fiorani, ¶68, wherein the DU can monitor the UE for inactivity) and transmitting an indication of UE data inactivity to the CU (see ¶59 and ¶69 wherein the DU notifies the CU of UE inactivity), wherein receiving the CU-to-DU message occurs after transmitting the indication (see Kim, ¶240)
The teachings are combined under the same rationale as described in the rejection to claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Fiorani teaches the method of claims 5 and 19, further comprising: before monitoring for data inactivity of the UE, receiving a message from the CU requesting that the DU perform the monitoring (¶79, wherein the gNB-CU configured the gNB-DU to report inactivity); and receiving an inactivity timer value from the CU (see ¶79, wherein the gNB-CU provides all sort of monitoring configuration including level of activity and a timer that expires), wherein monitoring for data inactivity of the UE includes monitoring for data inactivity of the UE in accordance with the inactivity timer value (¶68, wherein the DU monitoring inactivity using a timer, see ¶79, wherein the gNB-CU provides the configuration parameters to the DU for monitoring the inactivity).
Regarding claim 9, Fiorani, as improved by Kim and Chen, teaches the method of claim 8.
Kim additionally teaches wherein the CU-to-DU message is a first CU-to- DU message, and wherein the method further comprises: after receiving the DU-to-CU message (¶241), transmitting, to the DU, a second CU-to-DU message including the SDT DU configuration and a SDT CU configuration (¶244, wherein the gNb-CU transmits a UE CONTEXT RELEASE COMMAND that includes an indication of the SDT RLC settings).
The teachings are combined under the same rationale as described in the rejection to claim 8.
Regarding claim 10. Fiorani, as improved by Kim and Chen, teaches the method of claim 9.
Kim additionally teaches after transmitting the second CU-to-DU message to the UE, communicating with the UE via the DU and in accordance with the SDT CU configuration (¶244-247, wherein the DU communicates with the UE through the SDT configuration).
The teachings are combined under the same rationale as described in the rejection to claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Fiorani, as improved by Kim and Chen, teaches the method of claim 8.
Kim additionally teaches wherein the CU-to-DU message is a UE context modification request message and the DU-to-CU message is a UE context modification response message (¶¶240-241).
The teachings are combined under the same rationale as described in the rejection to claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Fiorani teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first CU configuration includes (i) configuration parameters, related to operations of a Radio Resource Control (RRC) layer and/or a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) protocol layer, (ii) a RadioBearerConfiq information element, or (iii) a MeasConfiq information element (¶54 wherein the CU provides services to the UE to provide a bearer, ¶35, wherein the bearer is a PDCP protocol instance, so the CU configures the bearer which is related to a PDCP protocol layer).
Regarding claim 13, Fiorani, as improved by Kim and Chen, teaches the method of claim 8, wherein further comprising: receiving an indication of UE data inactivity from the DU (¶69, wherein the gNB-DU can send a Activity indicate message), wherein transmitting the CU-to-DU message requesting the SDT DU configuration for the UE occurs after receiving the indication of UE data inactivity from the DU (Fiorani ¶78 wherein the gNB-CU UE Context MODIFICATION REQUEST) is transmitted based on determining the UE is modified; Kim, ¶240-244, wherein the UE Context MODIFICAION REQUEST can be modified to include performing SDT DU Configuration).
The teachings are combined under the same rationale as described in the rejection to claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Fiorani, as improved by Kim, wherein Fiorani additionally teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: transmitting a message to the DU requesting that the DU perform UE data inactivity monitoring (¶79, wherein the gNB-CU configured the gNB-DU to report inactivity); and transmitting an inactivity timer value to the DU for use in UE data inactivity monitoring (see ¶79, wherein the gNB-CU provides all sort of monitoring configuration including level of activity and a timer that expires).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorani, in view of Kim and Chen, and in further view of Centonza et al (US 2022/0369174, hereinafter “Centonza”).
Regarding claim 7, Fiorani teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Fiorani does not explicitly indicate wherein the first DU configuration is a CellGroupConfig information element.
Centonza teaches a DU-to-CU configuration of a UE bearer channel, wherein the DU configuration includes a CellGroupConfig IE that can manager the UE configuration on L1/L2 configuration (¶99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Centonza’s suggestion that the DU configuration should include CellGroupConfig IE into Fiorani’s system. The combination would allow the DU configuration of the UE in terms of L1/L2 configurations to be managed by the DU and reported to the CU. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to ensure that defined IE can be utilized to better manage the UE configurations at the DU.
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 KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 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.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights