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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 45-46, 49-56, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SHAH et al (US 2025/0089097) .
Regarding claim 45, SHAH discloses network device, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor (SHAH: Fig. 14, ¶248, ¶234, processor within BS/eNB/gNB, and software storing memory storage), cause the network device to:
configure a period of time for a terminal device by a higher layer signaling (SHAH: ¶250, ¶294, ¶296,configuration information from the base station for configuring a time period), wherein the terminal device is configured to monitor a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel block (SSB) for a downlink (DL) reception for the period of time (SHAH: ¶225, an SSB is selected that has a good enough quality for performing SDT transmission; ¶227, small data transmission DST) is performed on an SSB which is selected from one or more SSBs), and wherein the period of time is indicated by any one of: a timer, a time window or a counter of slot for the terminal device (SHAH: Fig. 22, ¶328-330, ¶250, the SSB is monitored during a time set by the configuration information ).
Regarding claim 46, SHAH discloses network device of claim 45, wherein the network device is further caused to:
receive, from the terminal device, an uplink (UL) transmission in small data transmission (SDT) procedure, utilizing a resource associated with a selected SSB, wherein the SSB is selected by the terminal device from one or more SSBs available for the SDT ((¶225, an SSB is selected that has a good enough quality for performing SDT transmission; ¶227, small data transmission DST) is performed on an SSB which is selected from one or more SSBs); and perform a DL transmission, utilizing a resource associated with the selected SSB for a period of time, wherein the period of time is based on at least one of: a timer, a time window, a counter of slot, a part of the SDT procedure at the network device (SHAH: ¶223, an SSB is transmitted in the configured time where the UE is configured to monitor the SSB).
Regarding claim 49, SHAH discloses network device of claim 46, wherein the network device is further caused to: receive another UL transmission in the SDT procedure utilizing a resource associated with the selected SSB until the period of time is expired (SHAH: ¶363, UL transmission in the SDT procedures are more than one).
Regarding claim 50, SHAH discloses network device of claim 46, wherein the network device is further caused to: receive another UL transmission in the SDT procedure utilizing a resource associated with another SSB different from the selected SBB during the period of time (SHAH: ¶369, ¶225, Fig. 18, more than one SSBs used for the SDT transmissions by the UE and received at the base station).
Regarding claim 51, SHAH discloses network device of claim 50, wherein an SSB is reselected after any DL transmission on the selected SSB (SHAH: ¶375, SSB is reselected).
Regarding claim 52, SHAH discloses network device of claim 45, wherein the transmission is an initial transmission in the SDT procedure (SHAH: ¶369, ¶225, Fig. 18, more than one SSBs used for the SDT transmissions by the UE and received at the base station).
Regarding claim 53, SHAH discloses network device of claim 45, wherein the transmission is a subsequent transmission in the SDT procedure (SHAH: ¶369, ¶225, ¶375, Fig. 18, more than one SSBs used for the SDT transmissions by the UE and received at the base station).
Regarding claim 54, SHAH discloses network device of claim 45, wherein for a subsequent transmission in the SDT procedure, another SSB from the selected SBB is reselected during the SDT procedure (SHAH: ¶375, other than the selected SSB, a different SSB is selected in a subsequent time period).
Regarding claim 55, SHAH discloses network device of claim 45, wherein the SDT procedure is performed based on configured grant (SHAH: ¶225, the SDT procedure is performed based on a configured grant).
Regarding claim 56, SHAH discloses network device of claim 45, wherein the SDT procedure is performed based on random access procedure (SHAH: ¶243, the SDT transmission is based on a random access 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.
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.
Claim(s) 40-43, 47-48, 57-59, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH et al (US 2025/0089097) in view of ZHANG et al (US 2024/0292353).
Regarding claim 40, 57, SHAH et al (US 2025/0089097) discloses terminal device, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes (Fig. 14: ¶248, ¶234, ¶12, processing circuitry with memory, software instruction);
the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor (Fig. 14: ¶248, ¶234, ¶12, processing circuitry with memory, software instruction), cause the terminal device to:
perform a transmission, in small data transmission (SDT) procedure utilizing a resource associated with a selected synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel block (SSB) (¶225, an SSB is selected that has a good enough quality for performing SDT transmission), wherein the SSB is selected from one or more SSBs available for the SDT procedure (¶227, small data transmission DST) is performed on an SSB which is selected from one or more SSBs); and
monitor the selected SSB for a downlink reception for a period of time (¶224, the UE measures the signal strength of each SSB it detects within).
SHAH remains silent regarding the period of time is dependent on at least quality of the selected SSB.
However, ZHANG et al (US 2024/0292353) discloses the period of time is dependent on at least quality of the selected SSB (ZHANG: ¶172, ¶187, ¶156, the length of monitoring time for SSB measurement is decided according to the SSB strength variation).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SHAH would have been motivated to use the teachings of ZHANG as it provides a way to improve handling of UE during variation of the signal for a better SSB measurement and additionally reducing the energy consumption of a terminal device, especially the energy consumption of the terminal device under an idle state or an inactive state (¶4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SHAH with teachings of ZHANG in order to improve energy conservation and mobility management.
Regarding claim 41, 58, SHAH modified by ZHANG discloses terminal device of claim 40, wherein the period of time expires in accordance with determination that quality of the selected SSB is below a threshold (SHAH: ¶329, Fig. 22, when it is determined that no suitable i.e. high enough quality SSB is detected i.e. quality of the selected SSB is below a threshold, a timer is run until it is expired; ZHANG: ¶200, when the signal strength is below a threshold, the paging period time expires and monitoring is according to a different time period e.g. a configured time period.).
Regarding claim 42, 59, SHAH modified by ZHANG discloses terminal device of claim 40, wherein the SDT procedure is performed based on a configured grant (SHAH: ¶225, the SDT procedure is performed based on a configured grant).
Regarding claim 43, SHAH modified by ZHANG discloses terminal device of claim 40, wherein the SDT procedure is performed based on a random access procedure (SHAH: ¶243, the SDT transmission is based on a random access procedure).
Regarding claim 47, SHAH discloses the network device of claim 46, wherein the period of time is utilized. SHAH remains silent regarding, however, ZHANG discloses that the period of time is extended upon any DL transmission on the selected SSB (ZHANG: ¶172, ¶187, ¶156, the length of monitoring time for SSB measurement is decided to be longer according to the SSB strength variation).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SHAH would have been motivated to use the teachings of ZHANG as it provides a way to improve handling of UE during variation of the signal for a better SSB measurement and additionally reducing the energy consumption of a terminal device, especially the energy consumption of the terminal device under an idle state or an inactive state (¶4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SHAH with teachings of ZHANG in order to improve energy conservation and mobility management.
Regarding claim 48, SHAH discloses the network device of claim 46. SHAH remains silent regarding, however, ZHANG discloses that the period of time is extended by any of: restarting the timer; extending the time window; and resetting the counter of slot (ZHANG: ¶172, ¶187, ¶156, the length of monitoring time for SSB measurement is decided to be longer by extending the length of the period longer than the paging period).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SHAH would have been motivated to use the teachings of ZHANG as it provides a way to improve handling of UE during variation of the signal for a better SSB measurement and additionally reducing the energy consumption of a terminal device, especially the energy consumption of the terminal device under an idle state or an inactive state (¶4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SHAH with teachings of ZHANG in order to improve energy conservation and mobility management.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH modified by ZHANG as applied to claim 43 above, further in view of YANG et al (US 2025/0024517).
Regarding claim 44, SHAH modified by ZHANG discloses terminal device of claim 43, wherein the terminal device is further caused to: perform a random access procedure when the quality of the selected SSB is below a threshold (SHAH: ¶328: no SSB detected by the UE is good enough quality i.e. below a threshold; the UE performs SDT based on a RA procedure) .
SHAH modified by ZHANG remains silent regarding the random-access procedure being another access procedure.
However, YANG et al (US 2025/0024517) discloses regarding the random-access procedure being another access procedure (YANG: ¶221, Fig. 6, UE performs a second RA procedure in response the SSB quality being low).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SHAH modified by ZHANG would have been motivated to use the teachings of YANG as it provides a way to effectively improve diversity gains brought by repetition transmission (¶71). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SHAH modified by ZHANG with teachings of YANG in order to improve diversity gains brought be repetition transmission with RO resources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO 892:
Document U provides an overview of SDT feature in Release 17 and 18, highlighting the aspects on which SDT differs from EDT. Most importantly, it presents simulation results for Release 17 Mobile Originated (MO) SDT and Release 18 Mobile Terminated (MT) SDT, highlighting the performance impact for a range of different SDT data payload sizes. The evaluations indicate that MO-SDT is beneficial even at 90000 bytes, offering tens of milliseconds of latency gains and up to 85% energy reduction for the UE. MT-SDT gains were restricted to data payloads below a few thousand bytes due to the limited link adaptation capability in the feature.
Document V discloses a study regarding the envisioned SDT solutions, namely RACH-based SDT and CG-based SDT. It evaluates performance in terms of packet delay, UE power consumption, signaling overhead and physical resource efficiency. Results show that all SDT solutions bring attractive gains as compared to the conventional data transfer after the RRC connection resume. Particularly, CG-based SDT solution achieves the highest gains with 73% in UE power efficiency and 85% in latency reduction. It enables to reduce the signaling overhead and to save the physical resource usage by 78%.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights