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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 9/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 16, 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan (US 20250317924 A1) in view of Lee (US 20170013610 A1), and further in view of Paczkowski (US 11924908 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Ganesan discloses a radio tag for communicating with a reader device, which serves a plurality of radio tags, is an A-loT reader connectable to a radio access network, RAN, entity a wireless communication system and is operable in accordance with a radio tag mode (Para. 34, 38-40, 59, Fig. 1-2),
wherein the radio tag comprises an A-loT device which communicates with the A-loT reader using an A-loT radio interface (Uu interface, Para. 39),
the A-loT radio interface supporting one or more A-loT procedures, the A-loT procedure comprising an A-IoT paging, an A-IoT access procedure and a D2R data transmission performed during the A-IoT procedure (Para. 77 and 92).
Ganesan fails to disclose wherein the D2R transmission by the radio tag comprises a D2R upper layer data transfer message for a segment of the data transmission which includes: a SDU length field, a data SDU field which is set to include the segment, and a more data indication field, wherein the more data indication field is set to 0, if the segment is the last segment of an original upper layer data SDU, and wherein the more data indication field is set to 1, if the segment is not the last segment of the original upper layer data SDU.
Lee teaches a method and apparatus for transmitting uplink data. The teachings include upper layer data transfer message for a segment of a data transmission which includes a SDU length field (Para. 163, 178), a data SDU field which is set to include the segment (Para. 163-167), and a more data indication field, wherein the more data indication field is set to 0, if the segment is the last segment of an original upper layer data SDU, and wherein the more data indication field is set to 1, if the segment is not the last segment of the original upper layer data SDU (Para. 171).
From the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan to include the features cited above in order to properly and reliably communicate data from the radio tag to the reader device using a standardized network communication model.
Ganesan and Lee fail to disclose wherein, when being in the radio tag mode, the reader device is in a state in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and the RAN entity.
Paczkowski teaches a system including a reader device to read tags (UE 110 including reader application 130 to read article including chip 103, col. 5, lines 32-49), wherein the reader device can be configured in a mode in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and a RAN entity to manage communications of devices in the system (col. 11, lines 10-40).
From the teachings of Paczkowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan to include wherein, when being in the radio tag mode, the reader device is in a state in which no data transfer is enabled between the reader device and the RAN entity in order to limit communications of some devices to avoid radio interference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues from pages 10-11 that Lee does not disclose the “more data indication field,” which indicates that the data included represents only part of data, and that further part will follow. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches that when the E field is ‘1’ is one, there is additional data incoming, which is equivalent to the “more data indication field” (Para. 171). Therefore, the teachings of Lee cures the deficiencies of the prior arts cited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2026 in pages 7-9 are persuasive. None of the prior arts teach or suggest the claimed invention as presented in claims 1-17 and 19-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art related to the claimed invention: WO 2024245613 A1, WO 2025210446 A1, US 20250106819 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights