DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/2025 and 09/22/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 Status
Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 13, 16 and 18-19 are amended.
Claims 6, 8, 15, 17 and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-25 are added.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16, 18-19 and 21-25 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 1-7), filed on 09/22/2025, with respect to claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16, 18-19 and 21-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10-14, 16, 18-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 20160044739 A1), hereinafter “Morita”, in view of Qian et al. (US 20150289289 A1), hereinafter “Qian”, and in view of Holmstrom et al. (US 20060221829 A1), hereinafter “Holmstrom”.
Per claim 1, 10 and 19:
Regarding claim 10, Morita teaches ‘A user equipment (UE) device’ (Morita: [FIG.2]: “UE”); ‘comprising: a processor’ (Morita: [FIG.2]: “PROCESSOR”);
‘configured to:
obtain a configuration specification for at least one discontinuous transmission parameter’ (Morita: [FIG.9]: UEs and their DTX parameters “ON DURATION” and “DTX CYCLE”; [FIG.10]: “dtxCycle Time”; [0081]: “the UEs 100-1 to 100-n recognize the DTX pattern based on the broadcast information from the eNB”; would obtain a configuration about at least one DTX parameter);
‘wherein the configuration specification includes different values for at least two different Quality of Service (QoS) classes’ (Morita: [0088]: “the eNB 200 set the DTX pattern based on a QoS class identifier (QCI)”; [FIG.10]: “dtxCycle Time” vs “QCI”: “200” for “1”, “300” for “2” … “1000” for “5”);
‘a period for sending scheduling requests to the base station’ (this is optional);
‘store the different values for the at least two different QoS classes into a parameter values database on the UE device’ (Morita: [0088]: “the eNB 200 set the DTX pattern based on a QoS class identifier (QCI)”; [FIG.10]: “dtxCycle Time” vs “QCI”: “200” for “1”, “300” for “2” … “1000” for “5”). However, Morita fails to expressly teach store QoS into a parameter values database on the UE device;
‘detect uplink data that is to be sent by the UE device to a device via the base station; determine a QoS class associated with the uplink data’ (Morita: [FIG.11]: S11: “SR”, S16”: DATA”; may detect UL data to send to a device via a base station; [FIG.10]: “QCI” vs “APPLICATION”; would determine a QoS class associated with the UL data);
‘select a value for the at least one discontinuous transmission parameter from the parameter values database based on and the determined QoS class associated with the uplink data’ (Morita: [FIG.10]: “QCI” vs “APPLICATION” vs “dtxCycle Time”, would select a value for at least one DTX parameter accordingly). However, Morita fails to expressly teach from the parameter values database;
‘send the uplink data to the base station based on the selected value for the at least one discontinuous transmission parameter’ (Morita: [FIG.11]: S16: “UE” to “eNB”: “DATA”, would send UL data based on the selected value for the at least one DTX parameter).
Morita does not expressly teach ‘wherein the at least one discontinuous transmission parameter includes at least one of: a wait timer configured to cause the UE device to wait a particular time period after detecting uplink data before sending a scheduling request to a base station’.
However, Qian in the same field of endeavor teaches a timer for delaying a scheduling request upon detecting UL data (Qian: [0067]: “when the UE has UL data to be transmitted and wants to trigger a SR for requesting an UL grant, it may start a timer for delaying the triggering of the SR. In this case, the UE may not trigger the SR while the timer is running”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Qian’s teaching with that of Morita for the at least one discontinuous transmission parameter to include a wait timer configured to cause the UE device to wait a particular time period after detecting the uplink data before sending a scheduling request in order to reduce resource consumption (Qian: [Abstract]: “Thus, by delaying or even cancelling trigger of a scheduling request, the resources consumption of scheduling request transmission may be reduced”).
Combination of Morita and Qian does not expressly teach store QoS into a parameter values database on the UE device.
However, Holmstrom in the same field of endeavor teaches UE has a QoS database to store QoS parameters (Holmstrom: [FIG.2A]: “QoS DATABASE (FIG.2B)”; [0023]: “a UE 200 which has a QoS database 222 (e.g., enhanced UMTS QoS Parameter Per Application Type database 222) with a defined format in which QoS values are organized and stored”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Holmstrom’s teaching with that of combination of Morita and Qian for UE to store the different values for the at least two different QoS classes into a parameter values database on the UE device and select a value for the at least one discontinuous transmission parameter from the parameter values database based on and the determined QoS class associated with the uplink data in order to help establish media flows by organizing and storing QoS parameter values (Holmstrom: [Abstract]: “A UE is described herein that has a defined QoS database which is used to organize and store various QoS parameter sets which are used to help establish media flows”).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the UE device of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the memory and the method implemented by the UE device of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Per claim 2, 11 and 21:
Regarding claim 11, Morita teaches the UE device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Morita teaches ‘retrieve the configuration specification from a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) or from a wireless chipset associated with the UE device’ (Morita: [FIG.9]; [FIG.10]; [0081]: “the UEs 100-1 to 100-n recognize the DTX pattern based on the broadcast information from the eNB”, could retrieve the configuration from a modem (a wireless chipset) associated with the UE device).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the method implemented by the UE device of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the memory and the method implemented by the UE device of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Per claim 3, 12 and 22:
Regarding claim 12, Morita teaches the UE device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Morita teaches ‘receive a message from a device associated with a provider network via the base station, wherein the message includes the configuration specification’ (Morita: [FIG.11]: S18: “MME/S-GW” to “eNB”: “BEARER SETTINGS (QoS)”, S19: “eNB”: “SET DTX FOR UE”, S20: “eNB” to “UE”: “DTX SETTING INFRORMATION”; [0102]: “the core network (MME/S-GW 300) transmits the QCI, which indicates the QoS set in the bearer of the UE”; would receive a message including configuration from MME/S-GW, a device associated with a provider network).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the method implemented by the UE device of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites the memory and the method implemented by the UE device of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Per claim 4 and 13:
Regarding claim 13, Morita teaches the UE device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Morita teaches ‘wherein the message includes a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message’ (Morita: [083]: “The eNB 200 then notifies the UE 100-2 of the pattern information indicating a changed DTX pattern. In the embodiment, the eNB 200 includes the pattern information in the RRC message and notifies the UE”).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the method implemented by the UE device of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Per claim 5, 14 and 23:
Regarding claim 14, Morita teaches the UE device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Morita teaches ‘an instruction to activate a parameter value, for the at least one discontinuous transmission parameter, which indicates a duration shorter than a default value for the at least one discontinuous transmission parameter, for uplink data associated with a low latency QoS class’ (Morita: [FIG.10]: “QCI”: “1”, “APPLICATION”: “VoIP”, “DELAY BUDEGT”: “100”, “dtxCycle Time”:200 vs “QCI”: “9”, “APPLICATION”: “TCP PROTOCOL”, “DELAY BUDGET”: “300”, “dtxCyle Time”: “-” (default); [FIG.8]: default “DTX CYCLE”; [FIG.9]: “UE100-2” vs other UEs; [0081]: “activate the transmitter 211 at a fixed activation cycle (dtx Cycle) and causes the transmitter 211 to enter the operation state for a fixed uptime (on Duration) for each dtx Cycle”; [0082]: “the eNB 200, which is in the discontinuous transmission (DTX), temporarily changes the DTX pattern in response to the reception of the request for communication from the UE 100-2. In the example of FIG. 9, the eNB 200 shortens the activation cycle (dtx Cycle) and extends the uptime (on Duration)”).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the method implemented by the UE device of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites the memory and the method implemented by the UE device of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Per claim 7, 16 and 24:
Regarding claim 16, combination of Morita and Qian teaches the UE device of claim 15 (discussed above).
Combination of Morita and Qian teaches ‘wherein, when the discontinuous transmission parameter includes the wait timer, the configuration specification includes a wait timer value of 1 millisecond or less for uplink data associated with a low latency QoS class’ (Morita: [FIG.10]: “QCI”: “4”, “DELAY BUDGET”: “50”, “APPLICATION”: “REAL-TIME GAME”, a low latency QoS class. Qian: [0081]: “the setting of the delay timer length may take into account a SR period, a DRX cycle or a traffic latency requirement … the SR delay timer may be set to be larger than 20 ms …. a SR delay timer length in the range of 20 to 30 ms would be appropriate … different values of the delay timer length should be configured for different UEs and traffic types in practice”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Qian’s teaching of SR delay timer length based on traffic latency requirement with that of Morita for the configuration specification to include a wait timer value of 1 millisecond or less for uplink data associated with a low latency QoS class.in order to reduce resource consumption with consideration of traffic latency requirement (Qian: [Abstract]: “Thus, by delaying or even cancelling trigger of a scheduling request, the resources consumption of scheduling request transmission may be reduced”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the method implemented by the UE device of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 recites the memory and the method implemented by the UE device of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
Per claim 9, 18 and 25:
Regarding claim 18, combination of Morita and Qian teaches the UE device of claim 17 (discussed above).
Combination of Morita and Qian teaches ‘wherein, when the discontinuous transmission parameter includes the period for sending scheduling requests to the base station, the configuration specification includes a period value which indicates a time shorter in duration than a default period value for sending scheduling requests, for uplink data associated with a low latency QoS class’ (Morita: [FIG.10]: “QCI”: “4”, “DELAY BUDGET”: “50”, “APPLICATION”: “REAL-TIME GAME”, a low latency QoS class. Qian: [0081]: “the setting of the delay timer length may take into account a SR period , a DRX cycle or a traffic latency requirement”; [0025]: “D-SR periods of 1 ms, 1 ms, 5 ms, 10 ms and 80 ms”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Qian’s teaching of SR delay timer length based on SR period with that of Morita for the configuration specification to include a period value which indicates a time shorter in duration than a default period value for sending scheduling requests, for uplink data associated with a low latency QoS class in order to reduce resource consumption with consideration of latency requirements (Qian: [Abstract]: “Thus, by delaying or even cancelling trigger of a scheduling request, the resources consumption of scheduling request transmission may be reduced”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the method implemented by the UE device of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites the memory and the method implemented by the UE device of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462