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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 10, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watts et al (US 2023/0284289). Hereinafter referred to as Watts.
Regarding claims 1, and 20. Watts discloses a method comprising: by a user equipment (UE) determining that one or more subsequent small data transmission (SDT) occasions of a plurality of periodic subsequent SDT occasions of an SDT session conflict in time with one or more measurement occasions of a plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session (see at least paragraphs [0067] and [0097]); and in response to the determining, forgoing SDT transmission during at least a subset of the one or more subsequent SDT occasions that conflict in time with the one or more measurement occasions (see at least paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 2. Watts discloses a method further comprising by the UE performing a measurement procedure on at least a subset of the measurement occasions during which the UE forgoes SDT transmission (see at least paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 3. Watts discloses a method wherein forgoing SDT transmission during at least the subset of the one or more subsequent SDT occasions comprises delaying SDT transmission until a later SDT occasion that does not conflict in time with a measurement occasion (see at least paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 10. Watts discloses a method further comprising: by the UE: in response to determining that all of the subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session conflict in time with measurement occasions of the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session, providing to a base station an indication that an SDT occasion configuration error has occurred (see at least paragraphs [0098], [0099] and [0140]-[0142]).
Regarding claim 14. Watts discloses a method further comprising by the UE: determining that a measurement object scheduled for measurement during a particular measurement occasion of the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session is a higher-priority measurement object; and forgoing SDT transmission during the particular measurement occasion (see at least paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 15. Watts discloses a method wherein the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session includes measurement occasions from one or more sets of periodic measurement occasions (see at least paragraphs [0071]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 16. Watts discloses a method wherein the one or more sets of periodic measurement occasions include one or more of: a set of periodic inter-frequency neighbor cell measurement occasions; a set of periodic inter-RAT neighbor cell measurement occasions; a set of periodic intra-frequency neighbor cell measurement occasions; a set of periodic serving cell downlink measurement occasions; or a set of periodic serving cell paging occasions (see at least paragraphs [0071]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 17, watts discloses a method further comprising by the UE forgoing SDT transmission during each subsequent SDT occasion that conflicts in time with the one or more measurement occasions; and performing SDT transmission during each subsequent SDT occasion that does not conflict in time with the one or more measurement occasions (see at least paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 18. watts discloses a method comprising by a user equipment (UE): determining that one or more subsequent SDT occasions of a plurality of periodic subsequent SDT occasions of a SDT session conflict in time with one or more measurement occasions of a plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session (see at least paragraphs [0067] and [0097]); and in response to the determining, performing subsequent SDT transmission during at least a subset of the one or more subsequent SDT occasions that conflict in time with the one or more measurement occasions (see at least paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 19. watts discloses a method further comprising by the UE: performing SDT transmission during each of the one or more subsequent SDT occasions that conflict in time with the one or more measurement occasions (see at least paragraph [0097]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 4, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts in view of ZTE (Email discussion summary).
Regarding claim 4, Watts discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of performing a timing alignment (TA) validation procedure after delaying the SDT transmission, but before the later SDT occasion. However, Nokia, from the same field of endeavor, teaches performing a timing alignment (TA) validation procedure after delaying the SDT transmission, but before the later SDT occasion (see at least page 22, element 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of ZTE, as indicated, into the communication method of Watts for the purpose of managing network resources and mange transmissions.
Regarding claim 9, Watts discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception in response to determining that all of the subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session conflict in time with measurement occasions of the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session, forgoing SDT transmission during each of the one or more subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session. However, Nokia, from the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to determining that all of the subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session conflict in time with measurement occasions of the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session, forgoing SDT transmission during each of the one or more subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session (see at least page 24). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of ZTE, as indicated, into the communication method of Watts for the purpose of managing network resources and mange transmissions.
Regarding claim 11, Watts discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that in response to determining that all of the subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session conflict in time with paging occasions of the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session, scaling a cycle length of the paging occasions. However, Nokia, from the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to determining that all of the subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session conflict in time with paging occasions of the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session, scaling a cycle length of the paging occasions (see at least page 31, element 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of ZTE, as indicated, into the communication method of Watts for the purpose of managing network resources and mange transmissions.
Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts in view of Nokia (Transmission in preconfigured UL resources).
Regarding claim 5, Watts discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception in response to determining that all of the subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session conflict in time with measurement occasions of the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session, forgoing SDT transmission on a fraction of the subsequent SDT occasions specified by a scaling factor. However, Nokia, from the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to determining that all of the subsequent SDT occasions of the SDT session conflict in time with measurement occasions of the plurality of measurement occasions scheduled during the SDT session, forgoing SDT transmission on a fraction of the subsequent SDT occasions specified by a scaling factor (see at least section 2: the purpose of the scaling factor). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Nokia, as indicated, into the communication method of Watts for the purpose of reduce collision and improve transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 6. Watts in view of Nokia discloses a method further comprising: by the UE: receiving from a base station an indication of a value of the scaling factor (see at least section 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights