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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
None of the instant claims invoke U.S.C. 112(f).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 28, 31-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL “UP Aspects for SDT” to Nokia et al. (“Nokia”) [provided by Applicant].
As to claims 1-2, 4, 9-11, 14, see similar rejections to clams 31-37, respectively. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 16, Nokia discloses a method for configuring a user equipment (UE), the method implemented in a radio access node (RAN) (2.1, UE; required by the network to interpret BSR…identified by the NW from the BSR…utilize Short BSR MAC CE format/Long BSR MAC CE format) and comprising: generating a delay configuration according to which the UE is to delay requesting a resource for a transmission to the RAN, during a small data transmission (SDT) procedure (Section 2.3 “Application of logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer for SDT”; “NW to control how long time the UE shall wait before triggering RA procedure”); transmitting a radio link control (RLC) bearer configuration, including a logical channel configuration, the logical channel configuration including the delay configuration, to the UE (Section 2.3 Application of logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer for SDT; configured by the NW; applies to all LCHs/DRBs); and receiving, from the UE and when the delay configuration applies to the SDT procedure, the request for the resource in accordance with the delay configuration (Section 2.3 “To prevent frequent RA triggers, it should be possible for the NW to control how long time the UE shall wait before triggering RA procedure upon SR trigger. This would give NW time to provide UL grant and prevent the unnecessary RA procedure during the SDT procedure.", Proposal 4).
As to claim 17, Nokia further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the transmitting of the delay configuration is performed when the UE operates in a connected state of a protocol for controlling radio resources between the UE and the RAN (2.3, CONNECTED mode).
As to claim 18, Nokia further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the transmitting of the delay configuration includes transmitting a command to reconfigure a radio connection between the UE and the RAN (2.3, logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer; NW to control (i.e. reconfigure) how long time the UE shall wait before triggering RA procedure upon SR trigger).
As to claim 28, Nokia further discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: providing the resource to the UE; and receiving, from the UE over the resource, a Medium Access Control (MAC) control element (CE) including a buffer status report (BSR) (2.1, required by the network to interpret BSR…identified by the NW from the BSR…utilize Short BSR MAC CE format/Long BSR MAC CE format).
As to claim 31, Nokia discloses an apparatus configured to function as a user equipment (UE) and transmit a control element (CE) to a radio access network (RAN) (2.1, UE; required by the network to interpret BSR…identified by the NW from the BSR…utilize Short BSR MAC CE format/Long BSR MAC CE format), the apparatus comprising: a transceiver (2.3, UL; DL); and processing hardware (implicit) configured to: determine, when the UE is performing a small data transmission (SDT) procedure, that a resource for transmitting the CE to the RAN is not available (Section 2.3 “Application of logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer for SDT, no SR resources are configured for UE to use in RRC_INACTIVE during the SDT procedure. Hence, whenever a BSR is triggered, an SR and consequently an RA procedure is triggered to request for UL resources during the RA-SDT procedure as no periodic resources exist like in CG-SDT procedure. The problem becomes especially with 2-step RA procedure where the MsgB does not come with UL grant but only DL transmission with contention resolution and TAC command."); receive, from the RAN, a radio link control (RLC) bearer configuration including a logical channel configuration, the logical channel configuration including a delay configuration (Section 2.3 Application of logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer for SDT; configured by the NW; applies to all LCHs/DRBs); and delay, in response to determining that the resource is not available and when the delay configuration applies to the SDT procedure, a transmission of a request for the resource to the RAN in accordance with the delay configuration (Section 2.3 “To prevent frequent RA triggers, it should be possible for the NW to control how long time the UE shall wait before triggering RA procedure upon SR trigger. This would give NW time to provide UL grant and prevent the unnecessary RA procedure during the SDT procedure.", Proposal 4).
As to claim 32, Nokia further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the delay configuration is specific to a logical channel associated with the SDT procedure (Section 2.3, Application of logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer for SDT).
As to claim 33, Nokia further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the logical channel configuration is a LogicalChannelConfig field (Section 2.1 Default configuration for PHR and BSR, page 2, Table under 9.2.1 Default SRB configurations, "LogicalChannelConfig").
As to claim 34, Nokia further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the delay configuration includes a logicalChannelSR-DelayTimerApplied indicator (Section 2.3, Application of logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer for SDT).
As to claim 35, Nokia further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processing hardware is further configured to: determine whether the delay configuration applies to the SDT procedure or a non-SDT procedure (2.2, SDT is initiated given data availability in these certain DRB(s) and all other conditions are fulfilled, the procedure goes smoothly until data appears on any of the STD DRB(s) not allowed to access the configured CG SDT resources…they should be considered as non-SDT DRBs; 2.3, logicalChannelSR-DelayTimer for SDT).
As to claim 36, Nokia further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the CE is a Medium Access Control (MAC) CE, the MAC CE including a buffer status report (BSR) (2.1, required by the network to interpret BSR…identified by the NW from the BSR…utilize Short BSR MAC CE format/Long BSR MAC CE format).
As to claim 37, Nokia further discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein: the delay configuration includes a value of a delay timer; and delaying the transmission includes: activating the delay timer, refraining from the transmission of the request for the resource while the delay timer is running, and transmitting the request for the resource to the RAN after the delay timer expires (2.3, Application of logcalChannelSR-DelayTimer for SDT, how long time the UE shall wait before triggering RA procedure).
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.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “UP Aspects for SDT” to Nokia et al. (“Nokia”) [provided by Applicant] in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0389117 A1 to LASELVA et al. (“Laselva”).
As to claim 21, Nokia does not expressly disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the generating of the delay configuration includes: generating a common configuration for the SDT procedure and a non-SDT procedure.
Laselva discloses certain example embodiments may enable the UE in RRC_inactive state (i.e. common configuration) to handle cases where SDT and non-SDT data may be simultaneously present in the UE's buffer at the time it is initiating a SDT (para. 0043).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the UE of Laselva into the
invention of Nokia. The suggestion/motivation would have been for handling data transmission such as non-small data transmission (SDT) in conjunction with SDT (Laselva, para. 0031). Including the UE of Laselva into the invention of Nokia was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Laselva.
As to claim 22, Nokia does not expressly disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the generating of the delay configuration includes: generating a first delay configuration for the SDT procedure, and generating a second delay configuration for a non-SDT procedure.
Laselva discloses the transfer of data of non-SDT DRB may incur extra delays whenever the data is generated in conjunction with SDT-DRB data (para. 0042).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the delays of Laselva into the
invention of Nokia. The suggestion/motivation would have been for handling data transmission such as non-small data transmission (SDT) in conjunction with SDT (Laselva, para. 0031). Including the delays of Laselva into the invention of Nokia was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Laselva.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240284548 A1 discloses at para. 0262: the base station DU may receive, from the wireless device, an RRC request message for a small data transmission (SDT) and uplink data associated with the small data transmission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 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 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights