Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/839,598

MANAGING DATA TRANSMISSION IN AN INACTIVE STATE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 19, 2024
Priority
Feb 22, 2022 — provisional 63/312,804 +1 more
Examiner
CRIGLER, RYAN ALEXANDER
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allowance Rate
2 granted / 2 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
14
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.3%
+22.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§112
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Specification The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. 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 1-2, 5-16, 19, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 20210337625 A1), hereinafter Tsai, reference was provided in the IDS by applicant. Claim 1 is a method of claim 15 and is thus rejected. Claim 2 is a method of claim 16 and is thus rejected. Claim 5 is a method of claim 19 and is thus rejected. Claim 6 is a method of claim 20 and is thus rejected. Regarding claim 7, Tsai teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein: the initiating of the RA procedure occurs prior to the second time. (paragraph 0140 – If the UL data becomes available prior to the transmission of the next CG resource then a the UE may use the CG configuration for the RA procedure). Regarding claim 8, Tsai teaches, The method of claim 3, further comprising: refraining from initiating the RA procedure when the time difference between the first time and the second time is less than the time threshold. (paragraph 0130 – Only after the time expires and the CG configuration becomes invalid will the UE initiate an RA procedure). Regarding claim 9, Tsai teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein: The initiating of the RA procedure further occurs when the UE is allowed to use the RA procedure to initiate the radio resource resume procedure to resume the radio connection. (paragraph 0129 – The expiration of the timer enables the UE to initiate an RA procedure and an RRC resume connection procedure). Regarding claim 10, Tsai teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising: refraining from initiating the RA procedure, when the UE is prevented from using the RA procedure to initiate a procedure to resume the radio connection. (paragraphs 0129, 0130 – If the timer has not expired or is valid then the UE will not have suspended the CG configuration and will not be initiating an RA procedure or an RRC resume connection procedure). Regarding claim 11, Tsai teaches, The method of claim 3,wherein: the message is associated with a procedure for resuming the radio connection; and (paragraph 0140 – The UE may use the CG configuration for uplink transmission to initiate an RRC connection resume procedure). the refraining is further in response to: determining that the procedure for resuming the radio connection is initiated for small data transmission (SDT). (paragraph 0140 – The RA procedure includes and is intended for SDT). Regarding claim 12, Tsai teaches, The method of claim 3, wherein: the message includes data; and (Figure 3, label 340, paragraph 0140 – the message includes UL data the refraining is further in response to: determining that the data is associated with a certain radio bearer. (paragraph 0144 – The UL data is associated with a radio bearer). Regarding claim 13, Tsai teaches, The method of claim 3, wherein: the message is associated with a procedure for resuming the radio connection; and (paragraph 0144 – The message can trigger an RRC connection resume procedure).the refraining is further in response to: determining that the procedure for resuming the radio connection is initiated for transmission of data associated with a certain radio bearer. (paragraph 0144 – The message is based on UL data associated with a radio bearer or logical channel). Regarding claim 14, Tsai teaches, The method of claim 2, wherein the refraining is further in response to: determining that a configuration for an SDT includes the CG-SDT. (The configuration is based on whether the TA for a CG is valid and includes the CD configuration for uplink transmission). Regarding claim 15, Tsai teaches, An apparatus, functioning as a user equipment (UE), comprising: a transceiver; and (Figure 4, label 420) one or more processors configured to: receive, from a radio access network (RAN), a configuration for uplink transmission to the RAN when a radio connection between the UE and the RAN is suspended, (paragraph 0082, 0083, 0095 – The UE receives an RRC message with uplink data transmission configuration for an RRC_inactive state)). the configuration including an indication of a time threshold; (Paragraph 0142 – The time threshold is transmitted by the base station.) initiate, at a first time when the radio connection is suspended, a radio resource resume procedure; (paragraph 0140, 0141 – The UE may initiate an RRC connection resume procedure at a first time before the next CG resource occasion). detect, when the radio connection is suspended, that an uplink (UL) resource for transmitting a message to the RAN is available at a second time subsequent to the first time; and (Paragraph 0141-0142 – The UE receives a periodic uplink resource that indicates the transmission timing of the next CG recourse occasion when an uplink would be performed.) initiate, when a time difference between the first time and the second time is greater than the time threshold, a random access (RA) procedure. (paragraph 0141 – The UE may decide to wait until the next CG resource occasion to initiate a random access procedure which would be the difference between when the RRC resume message is sent and when the uplink is available which coincides with a period of the next CG resource occasion). Regarding claim 16, Tsai teaches, The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the configuration for the uplink transmission includes a configured grant for small data transmission (CG-SDT). (paragraph 0083 – The UE supports SDT configurations in uplink data transmissions). Regarding claim 19, Tsai teaches, The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to the RAN, a request to resume the radio connection using the uplink grant. (Paragraph 0140 – The CG may be used to initiate an RRC resume). Regarding claim 20, Tsai teaches, The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to the RAN, uplink data using the uplink grant. (paragraph 0140 – The CG configuration is used for uplink data transmission). 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. 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. Claims 3, 4, 17, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of “3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting 116bis Electronic, Agenda item 8.6.2, Source: Nokia”, hereinafter Nokia, reference was provided in the IDS by applicant. Claim 3 is a method of claim 17 and is thus rejected. Claim 4 is a method of claim 18 and is thus rejected. Regarding claim 17, Tsai fails to teach, The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: refrain from transmitting the message to the RAN when the time difference between the first time and the second time is greater than the time threshold. However, Nokia teaches The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: refrain from transmitting the message to the RAN when the time difference between the first time and the second time is greater than the time threshold. (Page 3, 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 SDT procedure. This would give NW time to provide UL grant and prevent the unnecessary RA procedure during the SDT procedure”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to incorporate the refrain from transmitting teachings of Nokia. The purpose of doing so is to prevent frequent RA triggers (Page 3, section 2.3 of Nokia). Regarding claim 18, Tsai fails to teach, The apparatus of claim 15, wherein initiating the RA procedure includes initiating the RA procedure to obtain an uplink grant. However, Nokia teaches, The apparatus of claim 15, wherein initiating the RA procedure includes initiating the RA procedure to obtain an uplink grant. (Page 3, 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 SDT procedure. This would give NW time to provide UL grant and prevent the unnecessary RA procedure during the SDT procedure”).’ It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to incorporate the RA procedure teachings of Nokia. The purpose of doing so is to prevent frequent RA triggers (Page 3, section 2.3 of Nokia). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. US 20220124866 A1 – Paragraphs 0019, 0092, 0105 – performing random access based on a time threshold and using uplink grants. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Crigler whose telephone number is (571)272-9376. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm. 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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at (571) 270-5443. 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. /RYAN CRIGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2472 /NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 19, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
2y 6m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month