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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the remarks filed on 10/29/25. Claims 1, 7, 14, 15, 22, 32 and 33 have been canceled and claims 2 – 6, 8 – 13, 16 – 21, 23 – 31 and 34 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 10/29/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 2, 16, 17 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moulsley (US 2014/0204800 A1).
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.
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.
Claims 2 – 6, 8 – 13, 16 – 21, 23 – 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiba et al. (WO 2018/175547 A1) in view of Moulsley (US 2014/0204800 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Aiba teaches a method performed by a wireless device (Fig. 2: UE) for prioritized scheduling request transmission, the method comprising: transmitting, to a base station (Fig. 2: eNB), a scheduling request for data generated on a particular logical channel on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource in accordance with an associated scheduling request configuration (paragraph 27: The UE includes receiving circuitry configured to receive, from a base station apparatus, a radio resource control (RRC) message(s) that includes one or more scheduling request (SR) configurations. Each SR configuration is associated with one or more PUCCH resources. The SR configuration is corresponding to any one or more of the following: one or more logical channels (LCH), one or more logical channel groups (LCG), one or more priority. Also described in paragraph 130); wherein a scheduling request priority of the scheduling request is indicated by one or more physical layer properties of the PUCCH resource, in accordance with a mapping between the one or more physical layer properties of the PUCCH and the scheduling request priority (paragraph 67: Since it may be assumed that a mapping of LCH to LCG to numerology/TTI duration will make it possible to infer which numerology/TTI duration to use given the LCG indicated in the BSR, no additional information is needed in the BSR. [0068] SR enhancements give fast reporting without grant allocation at Layer 2. Also described in paragraphs 27-28, 130-131, 135).
Aiba does not explicitly disclose wherein the mapping is based on one or more configurable thresholds for one or more properties of the particular logical channel.
However, Moulsley teaches wherein the mapping is based on one or more configurable thresholds for one or more properties of the particular logical channel (paragraph 112: each transmission possibility indicates the LCG with the highest priority which has an amount data available for transmission exceeding a threshold. The threshold for each LCG may be different and may be configured by higher layer signaling or fixed by the specification. If we suppose that the threshold is one, this would result in using the transmission possibility to indicate LCG "C", as this is the highest-priority LCG with more than one unit of data available).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aiba’s method by incorporating the teachings of Moulsley, for the purpose of adapting to varying network conditions.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 6, 8 - 10, 11, 18 – 21, 23 – 25 and 28 – 31, Aiba teaches the limitations in (paragraphs 27-28, 130-131, 135).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Aiba teaches the limitations in (paragraphs 27).
Regarding claims 12 and 26, Aiba teaches the limitations in (paragraphs 129 - 130).
Regarding claims 13 and 27, Aiba teaches the limitations in (paragraphs 27).
Regarding claim 16, Aiba teaches the same limitations described above in the rejection of claim 2. Aiba further teaches the wireless device (Fig. 15: UE 1502) comprising: one or more transmitters (1558); and processing circuitry (1524) associated with the one or more transmitters.
Regarding claim 17, Aiba teaches the same limitations described above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 34, Aiba teaches the same limitations described above in the rejection of claim 2. Aiba further teaches the base station (Fig. 14: gNB1460) comprising: processing circuitry (1403).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHONDA L MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/RHONDA L MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462