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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 and in particular independent claims 1, 11, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For example, claim 1 recites, in part:“after terminating the SDT, initiating a second resume procedure”
It is noted that the UE receives a second RRC message, which terminates the SDT and initiates the second resume procedure. How then, does the UE initiate the second resume procedure when the network sends the second RRC message to the UE. It would appear that the network initiates the second resume procedure.
Claims 11 and 19, which are also independent recite similar features and/are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-10, 11-18, and 20, are similarly rejected for their dependency on claims 1, 11, and 19.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicants claim 1, 11, and 19, describe a fallback scenario wherein the UE performs a first RRC_RESUME and then performs a second a RRC_RESUME. Applicants specification at par.[0039 – 0048] describes the UE switching from an RRC_RESUME for SDT to an RRC_RESUME without SDT, see par.[0048] which recites, in part, “The UE may switch from a procedure of small data transmission (e.g. 2-step RA,
4-step RA, pre-configured PUSCH transmission, the procedure including UL data) to a resume procedure without carrying user data (or UL data).”.
It is unclear why a UE would switch from a first RRC_RESUME for SDT and then perform another RRC_RESUME for SDT, when the specification as filed teaches away from this.
Claims 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As discussed above, the specification as filed teaches falling back from an RRC_RESUME for SDT to an RRC_RESUME not for SDT, wherein at the time of the invention, it was not known how to stop an SDT procedure for SDT and then start another procedure for SDT. At the time of the invention, the procedure was to switch from an SDT procedure for RRC_RESUME, and switch to a procedure not for SDT as discussed in the applicants specification and the disclosures of the prior art below. The claims 7 and 17 are rejected.
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) 1-2, 11-12, and 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0225354 A1) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2022/0124828 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19, Wang discloses:
a user equipment (UE) (fig.8 depicts a one or more UEs), comprising:
a control circuit (fig.8 the UE would have a control circuit);
a processor installed in the control circuit (fig.8 the UE would have a processor installed in a control circuit); and
a memory, a storage which is non-transitory, installed in the control circuit (fig.2 and par.[0007] which recites, in part, “The user equipment comprises: a processor and a memory”) and operatively coupled to the processor (fig.2 and par.[0028]);
wherein the processor is configured a program code stored in the memory (fig.2 and par.[0028]) to:
initiate a first resume procedure for small data transmission (SDT) (fig.1 element 101 (i.e. MSG3), par.[0080] describes the RRC_RESUME, see “the Msg3 may further include the first RRC message (for example, an RRC connection resume request (RRC connection resume request) message))”), wherein the SDT is performed by configured resources (fig.1 see element 101 and par.[0068] which teaches the MO-EDT using Preconfigured Uplink Resource);
transmit a first Radio Resource Control (RRC) message during the first resume procedure (fig.1 element 101, first RRC_MESSAGE, and par.[0080] as discussed above);
receive a second RRC message in response to the first RRC message (fig.1 element 108, see second RRC message, also fig.13 and elements 1306 and 1307, par.[0248, 0292 - 0295]);
in response to receiving the second RRC message (fig.13 the MSG4 as discussed in fig.1 and fig.13, par.[0248]);
terminate the SDT (fig.13 and par.[0292] which recites, in part, “After the CU receives the first indication, the CU generates an RRC connection resume message as an Msg4”, par.[0293-0294] which describes the fallback of the MO-EDT procedure); and
While the disclosure of Wang teaches fallback from a first RRC_RESUME for EDT, it may not disclose:
reset a medium access control (MAC) of the UE; and
after terminating the SDT, initiating a second resume procedure.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Uchino teaches:
reset a medium access control (MAC) of the UE (par.[0043] describes the fallback from a first RACH to a second RACH, wherein the RACH process is used EDT/SDT and RRC_RESUME in MSGA or MSG3); and
after terminating the SDT, initiating a second resume procedure (par.[0043] describes switching from a first type of RACH e.g. 2-step to 4-step, wherein it is noted that the RRC_RESUME with SDT/EDT utilizes either of the two types of RACH procedures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Wang for fallback from a first RRC_RESUME procedure using a RACH to another RRC_RESUME procedure using a RACH which may or may not comprise SDT, with the disclosure of Uchino which teaches the initiation of the RACH Resume by the UE when the fallback instruction is received ending the first RACH procedure. The motivation/suggestion would have been that switching the RACH procedure allows for a more suitable RACH procedure to be performed which may accommodate a certain amount of data and/or allow for transmission of data in certain radio conditions and the reset of the MAC deletes or resets the previous MAC configuration associated with the previous RACH_RESUME process.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 20, Wang discloses:
wherein the first RRC message is a RRC resume request (fig.1 element 101 (i.e. MSG3), par.[0080] describes the RRC_RESUME, see “the Msg3 may further include the first RRC message (for example, an RRC connection resume request (RRC connection resume request) message))”).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Uchino discloses:
wherein the second resume procedure is performed by a 2-step RA, a 4-step RA or the configured resources (par.[0040] describes the 4-step RA being initialized for RRC_RESUME).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0225354 A1) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2022/0124828 A1), further in view of da Silva et al. (US 2018/0302914 A1).
Regarding claim 3 and 13, the disclosure of Wang in view of Uchino and in particular Wang teaches:
The first RRC message as shown above, but may not disclose:
wherein the SDT is used for transmitting data in RRC_INACTIVE state.
However, it is well-known that the UE perform RRC_RESUME while the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE state.
For example, in an analogous art, the disclosure of Kim teaches:
wherein the SDT is used for transmitting data in RRC_INACTIVE state (par.[0111] which teaches the RRC_RESUME sent from the UE with SDT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Wang and Uchino as discussed above, in view of da Silva, which teaches that the UE can perform SDT using RRC_RESUME while in the RRC_INACTIVE state. The motivation/suggestion is two -fold by allowing the UE to enter into an RRC_INACTIVE state, the context of the UE is stored at the network, and RRC_RESUME procedure allows the UE to transmit SDT data while in the RRC_INACTIVE state without necessarily having to go to an RRC_CONNECTED state which reduces power and signaling overhead in the network.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0225354 A1) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2022/0124828 A1), further in view of Mildh et al. (US 2020/0120491 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the disclosure of Wang in view of Uchino and in particular Wang teaches:
The first resume procedure, but may not disclose:
that the first Resume procedure is initiated by upper layers.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Mildh explicitly discloses:
that the first Resume procedure is initiated by upper layers (par.[0065] which teaches that UE initiates the RRC_RESUME when upper layers request Resume).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Wang and Uchino for performing RACH/SDT fallback with the disclosure of Mildh for initiating RRC_RESUME based on a request from upper layers. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the upper layers signal to the lower layers when data is available such that the UE may be able to transmit the data using the resume or perform a resume to a connected state to transmit data.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Mildh discloses:
wherein the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE state (fig.1 depicts when the UE uses the RESUME the UE is in NR RRC_INACTIVE also fig.5 element 502).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0225354 A1) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2022/0124828 A1), further in view of Goektepe et al. (US 2022/0369136 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the disclosures of Wang and Uchino teach the independent claims, but may not disclose:
wherein the configured resources are Configured Grant (CG) Type 1.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Goektepe teaches:
wherein the configured resources are Configured Grant (CG) Type 1 (par.[0060] which recites, in part, “Different configured grant time domain resource allocation mechanisms exist in NR, referred to as type 1 CG and type 2 CG. A UE may be configured with CG(s) by RRC signaling at some time and the CG(s) may be periodically used by the UE.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Wang and Uchino for SDT using RRC_RESUME, with the disclosure of Goektepe which teaches the different types of periodic resources that the UE can use. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the UE can utilize the preconfigured resources without having to constantly require a resource allocation from the network in order to transmit small or configured amounts of data, which reduces signaling overhead.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0225354 A1) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2022/0124828 A1), further in view of Chang et al. (US 2022/0167452 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the disclosure of Wang in view of Uchino teach the independent claims, and the fallback from the first RACH to a second RACH procedure (e.g. a RRC_RESUME/Connection), but may not disclose:
wherein the second resume procedure is not for SDT or for SDT.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Chang teaches:
wherein the second resume procedure is not for SDT or for SDT (par.[0081] which recites, in part, “This embodiment also proposes a method for falling back from pre-configured uplink resource transmission to a conventional transmission mode or an EDT mode.”. It is noted that EDT/SDT is performed with PUR as discussed in the above reference Wang, and in Chang, par.[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Wang and Uchino, with the disclosure of Chang. The motivation/suggestion would have been to fallback to allow transmission of pending SDT data or data that exceeds the SDT threshold to the network to reduce transmission delays.
Claim(s) 9-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0225354 A1) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2022/0124828 A1), and further in view of Choe et al. (US 2021/0058824 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wang and Uchino teach the independent claims but may not disclose:
transmitting a third RRC message during the second resume procedure, wherein the third RRC message is another RRC resume request.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Choe teaches:
transmitting a third RRC message during the second resume procedure, wherein the third RRC message is another RRC resume request (par.[0168] and S1250, which recites, in part, “If the MME or BS decides the UE to move in RRC_CONNECTED, RRCConnectionResume message is sent in step S916 to fall back to the legacy RRC Connection resume procedure” That is, the UE in step S916 would receive an indication to fallback to the legacy RRC_RESUME procedure, and would require a new RRCRESUMEREQUEST message as discussed in par.[0173]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Wang and Uchino with the disclosure of Choe. The motivation/suggestion would have been that when the UE is performing another RRC_RESUME it would need to send another RRC_RESUME request message to the network.
Regarding claim 10, Choe discloses:
entering RRC_CONNECTED state in response to the second resume procedure (fig.9 and par.[0173] the legacy RRC_RESUME transitions the UE into RRC_CONNECTED state, see fig.7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Guo et al. (US 2015/0036617 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Improving Random Access Preamble Transmission in a Wireless Communication System”
Tsai (US 2018/0270869 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Backoff Mechanism Applied for Random Access Procedure in Wireless Communication System”
Futaki (US 2021/0385867 A1) “Radio Terminal, Radio Access Network Node, and Method Therefor”
Choe et al. (US 2021/0058972 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Early Data Transmission”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights