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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth.
In regards to the applicants argument on Pg. 13 of the remarks, the examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically the applicant argues that the previous non final office action of 12/2/2025 does not include a response to applicants prior arguments regarding the reference of Li for allegedly disclosing the claim 1 recitation of a “maximum uplink delay”. However the examiner did not rely on the “maximum uplink delay” claim feature in the previous rejection since previous claim 1 recited i.e., “wherein the one or more delay statistics include at least one of: a downlink delay or a maximum uplink delay in which the examiner rejected the claim feature of the delay statistic including the downlink delay.
Therefore since the previous rejection of claim 1 did not rely on the maximum uplink delay feature, a response to applicants argument regarding the maximum uplink delay claim feature in claim 1 is not required since previous claim 1 stated that “the one or more delay statistics include at least one of: a downlink delay or a maximum uplink delay in which the examiner rejected the claim feature of the delay statistic including the downlink delay and the maximum uplink delay feature in previous claim 1 was not required to be addressed due to the claim language of “the one or more delay statistics include at least one of a downlink delay or a maximum uplink delay”. The examiner also notes that a previous response to arguments regarding the Li reference with respect to the maximum uplink delay feature has been made by the examiner in the final office action of August 6 2025.
As previously mentioned above, a new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth for claims 1-20, 22, and 24-25 which does not rely on the teachings of Li et al. US (2021/0345371) for the “maxim uplink delay feature” recited in independent claims 1, 14, and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see Fig. 10 i.e., terminal device & Para [0256]), comprising: memory (see Fig. 10 i.e., memory 42); and at least one processor (see Fig. 10 i.e., processor 41) coupled to the memory (see Fig. 10 i.e., memory 42), and based at least in part on information stored in the memory (see Fig. 10 i.e., memory 42 & Para [0256] i.e., The memory 42 may store various instructions, to complete various processing functions and implement method steps in this application & [0257] i.e., the memory 42 is configured to store computer-executable program code, and the program code includes instructions executed by the processor 41), the at least one processor is configured (see Para’s [0256-0258] i.e., processor 41 executes the instructions to perform processing actions of the terminal) to: measure one or more delay statistics, at the UE, (see Para’s [0011-0015], [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or a downlink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies the network device of a corresponding result)
that correspond to a delay budget (DB) for traffic associated with one or more logical channels (LCHs); (see Para’s [0003] i.e., ultra-reliable and low-latency communication (URLLC) service & [0004] i.e., With development of communication requirements, low-latency performance needs to be ensured for more services. For example, an URLLC service described above requires that a delay is within 0.5 ms (i.e., “delay budget”), [0092-0093] i.e., QoS flows are mapped to a data radio bearer (DRB) (i.e., “logical channel”), [0096] i.e., data transmission service is on a logical channel, & [0106] i.e., the URLLC service described above requires that a delay is within 0.5 ms (i.e., “delay budget”). Therefore, to ensure service performance, a delay of a current network needs to be measured, and delay performance of the current network needs to be learned & [0207])
wherein the one or more delay statistics include: an uplink delay (see Para’s [0011-0015] i.e., when the foregoing uplink transmission delay measurement is performed by the terminal device triggered by the network device, before the network device obtains the transmission delay measurement result, the method further includes: The network device sends first indication information to the terminal device. The first indication information is used to trigger the terminal device to perform the uplink transmission delay measurement [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies the network device of a corresponding result)
and transmit, to a network entity (see Fig. 1 i.e., radio access network device 120), a report associated with the traffic for the one or more LCHs, (see Para’s [0092-0093] i.e., QoS flow mapped to data radio bearer (DRB), [0096] i.e., service on a logical channel, [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal device collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies (i.e., “report”) the network device of a corresponding result. The terminal device may feedback (i.e., “report”) delay information corresponding to each data packet)
the report including an indication of the one or more delay statistics that correspond to the DB, (see Para’s [0015], [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal device collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies (i.e., “report”) the network device of a corresponding result. The terminal device may feedback (“report”) delay information corresponding to each data packet)
Hu does not disclose wherein the one or more delay statistics include: a maximum uplink delay from a third time when second data is generated by an application to a fourth time when a second transport block (TB) with the second data is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146).
Zhou discloses wherein one or more delay statistics include: a maximum uplink delay from a third time when second data is generated by an application to a fourth time when the second data is transmitted (see Para’s [0066-0067] i.e., The maximum delay allowed by the uplink data indicates a delay of transmitting the uplink data that the user equipment can tolerate, [0090] i.e., For example, the determination unit 210 may adjust the parameters of the sleep mode according to the maximum delay allowed by the uplink data of the user equipment. Here, since there may be a time difference (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) between a time instance when the user equipment generates the uplink data (i.e., “third time”) and the data transmission window (i.e., fourth time when the data is transmitted), the determination unit 210 may determine to adjust the parameters of the sleep mode in a case that the time difference is greater than the maximum delay allowed by the uplink data (i.e., the “time difference” is interpreted as the claimed “maximum uplink delay” since it is a measurement of the uplink delay of the uplink data such as the time difference between a time instant when the data is generated by the UE and the data transmission window (i.e., when the data is transmitted), [0091] i.e., the UE transmits data in the data transmission window, & [0192] i.e., UE application layer)
(Zhou suggests the determination unit 210 of the electronic equipment 200 (i.e., “network entity”) uses the time difference information (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) to schedule parameters of the sleep mode of the UE so as to satisfy the maximum delay of the uplink data of the user equipment and ensure the delay requirement for delivering the data on time (see Para’s [0067], [0090], [0092], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the one or more delay statistics reported to the network including uplink transmission delay as disclosed in Hu to report a delay statistic such as the maximum uplink delay disclosed in the teachings of Zhou, because the motivation lies in Zhou that the determination unit 210 of the electronic equipment 200 (i.e., “network entity”) uses the time difference information (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) to schedule parameters of the sleep mode of the UE so as to satisfy the maximum delay of the uplink data of the user equipment and ensure the delay requirement for delivering the data on time.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou does not disclose a second transport block with the second data is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982).
Nishio discloses a transport block with uplink data that is generated by the UE (see Fig. 5 i.e., transmission data generator 205 of UE 200) is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), (see Para’s [0073], & [0174-0176] i.e., transmission data generator 205 determines a TB size based on the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission)
(Nishio suggests the TB size is configured according to the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission in which the data amount to be transmitted increases as the number of slots increases so that throughput can be improved and a traffic type with a latency or reliability requirement can be accommodated efficiently (see Para’s [0131], [0210-0211], & [0319])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the uplink data that is generated and transmitted by the UE as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou to include a second transport block with the second data to be transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on the teachings of Nishio who discloses a transport block with uplink data that is generated by the UE is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), because the motivation lies in Nishio that the TB size is configured according to the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission in which the data amount to be transmitted increases as the number of slots increases so that throughput can be improved and a traffic type with a latency or reliability requirement can be accommodated efficiently.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more delay statistics that correspond to the DB (Hu, see Para’s [0004] & [0106] i.e., latency requirement of URLLC service) include at least one of: a downlink delay from a first time when a PDCCH for a first TB is received to a second time when the first data is delivered to an application; or the downlink delay from the first time when the PDCCH for the first TB is received to the second time when the first data is delivered to an application, (Hu, see Para’s [0204] i.e., a terminal device collects statistics about a delay between a moment at which the last segment of the SDU is correctly by the terminal device received (i.e., moment at which the last segment of the SDU is correctly received includes PDCCH reception for correctly receiving the SDU) and a moment at which an SDAP layer or a PDCP layer of the terminal device submits the SDU to an upper layer (i.e., the SDU will be submitted (i.e., “delivered”) to an application) & [0207] i.e., the terminal collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171), and further in view of Kang et al. US (2022/0124777).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1 including wherein the report is transmitted to the based station (Hu, see Para [0207] i.e., the terminal feeds back delay information to the network device), but does not disclose wherein the report is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171).
Jung discloses wherein a report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station (see Para’s [0006], [0014], [0022], [0040] i.e., the terminal transmits a buffer status report (BSR) message. The BSR message is one of MAC messages (control elements (CEs)) & [0069])
(Jung suggests the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service, (see Para’s [0006] & [0069])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the report including the delay information of the traffic transmitted from the UE to the network entity in the uplink as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to be comprised in the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE disclosed in Jung who discloses wherein a report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station, because the motivation lies in Jung that the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Jung does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the MAC-CE report is sent on the PUSCH. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Kang et al. US (2022/0124777).
Kang discloses wherein a buffer status report (i.e., report) is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) on the PUSCH, (see Para [0468] i.e., a buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted in a corresponding PUSCH because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured)
(Kang suggests the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted on the PUSCH for indicating a UE’s buffer status to the network and because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured for properly sending the BSR MAC-CE, (see Para’s [0323], [0345], & [0468])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the MAC-CE buffer status report transmitted from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Jung to be sent on the PUSCH as disclosed in Kang who discloses wherein a buffer status report is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) on the PUSCH, because the motivation lies in Kang that the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted on the PUSCH for indicating a UE’s buffer status to the network and because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured for properly sending the BSR MAC-CE.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), further in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171), and further in view of Kang et al. US (2022/0124777) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Babaei et al. US (2018/0368132).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Kang discloses the apparatus of claim 2 including wherein the report is comprised in a BSR (Jung, see Para’s [0006] & [0040]), but does not disclose wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report responsive to at least one of: a layer 1 (L1), a layer 2 (L2), or a layer 3 (L3) signaling received from the network entity; or a MAC service data unit (MAC SDU), from a LCH of the one or more LCHs, having an experienced delay at the UE that satisfies a threshold. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Babaei et al. US (2018/0368132).
Babaei discloses wherein to transmit a buffer status report (BSR), the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report responsive to at least one of: a layer 1 (L1), a layer 2 (L2), or a layer 3 (L3) signaling received from the network entity (see Para [0262] i.e., In an example, the MAC entity in the wireless device may trigger a BSR in response to receiving an activation/starting command (e.g., a MAC-CE (i.e., “layer 2 signaling”) and/or an RRC message (i.e., “layer 3 signaling”) from the base station).
(Babaei suggests the triggered BSR is transmitted for properly indicating buffer status for a logical channel of the wireless device and for appropriately scheduling resource allocation for the wireless device based on the BSR (see Para’s [0202], [0228-0229] & [0238-0239])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Kang, to transmit the buffer status report responsive to at least one of: a layer 2 (L2), or a layer 3 (L3) signaling received from the network entity as disclosed in the teachings of Babaei, because the motivation lies in Babaei that the triggered BSR is transmitted for properly indicating buffer status for a logical channel of the wireless device and for appropriately scheduling resource allocation for the wireless device based on the BSR.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), further in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171), and further in view of Kang et al. US (2022/0124777) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yi et al. US (2019/0141550).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Kang discloses the apparatus of claim 2, but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to: report the one or more delay statistics for multiple LCHs in response to at least one LCH having an experienced delay that satisfies a threshold. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Yi et al. US (2019/0141550).
Yi discloses at least one UE processor is configured to: report the one or more delay statistics for multiple LCHs in response to at least one LCH having an experienced delay that satisfies a threshold (see Fig. 15 & Para’s [0070] i.e., logical channels are therefore grouped into logical channel groups and the reporting is done per group, [0072], [0116], [0125], [0129], & [0141], [0145-0146] i.e., grouping logical channels to a LCG, & [0150] i.e., for performing UL packet delay measurement per LCG, the UE calculates an average of UL packet delay of each LCG using UL packet delays of LCPs (i.e., “logical channels”). For each LCG, the UE sums up all the UL packet delays of LCPs having RBs whose UL packet delay is above a threshold (i.e., LCH having experienced delay that satisfies a threshold) during the measurement period, and obtains an UL packet delay of the same LCG (i.e., multiple LCHs)). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the UL packet delay measurement per LCG as disclosed in (Para [0150]), can be similarly performed for downlink delay based on (Para [0085]) of Yi which discloses packet delay measurements may also be performed in the downlink.
(Yi suggests it is possible to reduce signaling overhead by grouping logical channels to a LCG and by reporting the DL/UL packet measurements per LCG, the UE can report DL/UL packet measurements more efficiently (see Para [0146])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the one or more delay statistics reported from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Kang, to report the one or more delay statistics for multiple LCHs in response to at least one LCH having an experienced delay that satisfies a threshold as disclosed in the teachings of Yi, because the motivation lies in Yi that it is possible to reduce signaling overhead by grouping logical channels to a LCG and by reporting the DL/UL packet measurements per LCG, the UE can report DL/UL packet measurements more efficiently.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sha et al. US (2021/0160791).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose the claim features of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a scheduling request to the network entity for a resource to transmit the report; and receive, from the network entity, a grant of the resource, wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report in the resource granted by the network entity. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Sha et al. US (2021/0160791).
Sha discloses wherein at least one processor of a UE (see Fig. 9 i.e., UE) is further configured to: transmit a scheduling request to the network entity for a resource to transmit the report; (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0074] i.e., BSR, [0081], & [0084-0087] i.e., when the scheduling request (SR) includes the big scheduling request indication, one of following information is sent to the terminal: uplink scheduling grant resource required for transmitting a buffer status report BSR))
and receive, from the network entity, a grant of the resource (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0084-0087] i.e., when the scheduling request (SR) includes the big scheduling request indication, one of following information is sent to the terminal: uplink scheduling grant resource required for transmitting a buffer status report BSR ), wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report in the resource granted by the network entity (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0074] i.e., BSR & [0084-0087] i.e., when the scheduling request (SR) includes the big scheduling request indication, one of following information is sent to the terminal: uplink scheduling grant resource required for transmitting a buffer status report BSR)).
(Sha suggests buffer status report (BSR) which indicates the UEs state of data volume stored in its buffer is important reference information in order for an eNB to perform reasonable radio resource scheduling for the UE and the requested uplink scheduling resource grant is required in order for the UE to properly transmit the BSR, (see Para’s [0003-0004], [0074], & [0084-0087])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to transmit the BSR by transmitting the scheduling request to the network entity for a resource to transmit the report; and receive, from the network entity, the grant of the resource for transmitting the BSR to the network entity such as the base station as disclosed in the teachings of Sha, because the motivation lies in Sha that the buffer status report (BSR) which indicates the UEs state of data volume stored in its buffer is important reference information in order for an eNB to perform reasonable radio resource scheduling for the UE and the requested uplink scheduling resource grant is required in order for the UE to properly transmit the BSR.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohr et al. US (2023/0388007).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, prior to the report being transmitted, a configured grant that allocates resources to the UE, wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report in a resource of the configured grant. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Lohr et al. US (2023/0388007).
Lohr discloses receive, prior to a buffer status report being transmitted, a configured grant that allocates resources to the UE, (see Para’s [0112] & [0113] i.e., for cases that the UE has been assigned configured grant uplink resource which are associated with the BSR MAC CE…Basically, the SR triggering can be prohibited for the case that the UE has been assigned with configured uplink resources for transmission of BSR MAC CE)
wherein to transmit the buffer status report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the buffer status report in a resource of the configured grant, (see Para’s [0112-0113] i.e., BSR MAC CE will be transmitted using the configured grant uplink resource)
(Lohr suggests it may be considered to assign exclusively CG resources to the UEs which are used for the reporting of buffer status information which could avoid the need to first send a SR in order to request uplink resources for transmitting the BSR MAC CE and hence could significantly reduce the uplink scheduling delay (see Para [0112])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to receive, prior to the buffer status report being transmitted, a configured grant that allocates resources to the UE, wherein to transmit the buffer status report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the buffer status report in a resource of the configured grant as disclosed in the teachings of Lohr, because the motivation lies in Lohr that it may be considered to assign exclusively CG resources to the UEs which are used for the reporting of buffer status information which could avoid the need to first send a SR in order to request uplink resources for transmitting the BSR MAC CE and hence could significantly reduce the uplink scheduling delay
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chou et al. US (2016/0338074).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, to the network entity, a subsequent report associated with subsequent traffic for the one or more LCHs, the subsequent report including a delta indication of a difference between of the one or more delay statistics in a prior report and one or more subsequently measured delay statistics. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chou et al. US (2016/0338074).
Chou discloses transmitting, to the network entity, a subsequent report associated with subsequent traffic for the one or more LCHs (see Para [0041] i.e., For delay report, the UE can only indicate delta information the difference between last report)
Chou discloses the subsequent report from a UE including a delta indication of a difference between one or more delay statistics in a prior report and one or more subsequently measured delay statistics (see Para’s [0037-0038] i.e., packet delay measurements & [0041] i.e., For delay report, the UE can only indicate delta information (the difference between last report)).
(Chou suggests upon receiving the delay report by the base station, the eNB may utilize that information for LWA scheduling (e.g., change the traffic dispatching ratio) in which advantage of this solution is that LWA can provide better control and utilization of resources on both links and can increase the aggregate throughout for the user (see Para’s [0005] & [0041]))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the report sent from the UE to the base station for the one or more LCHs as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to include transmitting a subsequent report associated with subsequent traffic including a delta indication of the difference between the one or more delay statistics in a prior report and the one or more subsequently measured delay statistics as disclosed in the teachings of Chou who discloses a subsequent report from a UE including a delta indication of a difference between one or more delay statistics in a prior report and one or more subsequently measured delay statistics, because the motivation lies in Chou that upon receiving the delay report by the base station, the eNB may utilize that information for LWA scheduling (e.g., change the traffic dispatching ratio) in which advantage of this solution is that LWA can provide better control and utilization of resources on both links and can increase the aggregate throughout for the user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moradi et al. US (2023/0041074).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including wherein the one or more delay statistics correspond to the DB are associated with a MAC protocol data unit (MAC-PDU) from a LCH of the one or more LCHs; (Hu, see Para’s [0100] & [0207]), but does not disclose the claim features of and wherein the one or more delay statistics include at least one of: a first order delay statistic, a second order delay statistic, a mean value for the one or more delay statistics taken over a window of time, a variance for the one or more delay statistics taken over the window of time, or a standard deviation for the one or more delay statistics taken over the window of time. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Moradi et al. US (2023/0041074).
Moradi discloses wherein the one or more delay statistics include at least one of: a mean value for the one or more delay statistics taken over a window of time, or a standard deviation for the one or more delay statistics taken over the window of time (see Para [0012] i.e., In some embodiments, estimating network conditions comprises estimating statistics for the network conditions over a time window, wherein the statistics include one or more of a mean…a standard deviation…and wherein the network conditions include one or more of delay, delay jitter, and packet loss & [0054]).
(Moradi suggests by monitoring the local client nodes (i.e., mobile devices) network condition and the re-grouping the local client nodes with similar data distributions, the performance of the central ML model on a base station may be improved (see Para’s [0008-0010], [0032-0034], & [0045]) and such network measurements are used for identifying anomalies or changes in network conditions in order to cluster the local client nodes based on those network conditions (see Para [0032])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the one or more delay statistics correspond to the DB as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to include the estimated one or more delay statistics which may include a mean value or a standard deviation for the one or more delay statistics taken over a window of time as disclosed in the teachings of Moradi who discloses estimating network conditions comprises estimating statistics for the network conditions over a time window which may include one or more of a mean value or a standard deviation for delay values, because the motivation lies in Moradi that by monitoring the local client nodes (i.e., mobile devices) network condition and the re-grouping the local client nodes with similar data distributions, the performance of the central ML model on a base station may be improved and such network measurements are used for identifying anomalies or changes in network conditions in order to cluster the local client nodes based on those network conditions.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US (2024/0032140).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1 including wherein to measure the one or more delay statistics that correspond to the DB for the traffic associated with the one or more LCHs, the at least one processor is configured to: measure a downlink delay with respect to the delay budget (DB) (Hu, see Para’s [0106], [0204], & [0207]), but does not disclose the claim feature of measuring a residual DB, for downlink (DL) traffic of the traffic, associated with a time difference between (1) an end of the DB of the UE that is configured by the network entity and (2) a delivery deadline required by the application for the DL traffic. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Lee et al. US (2024/0032140).
Lee discloses measuring a residual DB, for downlink (DL) traffic of the traffic (see Para [0203] i.e., remaining packet delay budget (PDB) related to a received MAC PDU is determined by the first device (i.e., UE)), associated with a time difference between (1) an end of the DB of the UE that is configured by the network entity and (2) a delivery deadline required by the application for the DL traffic (see Para’s [0169] i.e., latency requirement related to the MAC PDU (i.e., “delivery deadline”) [0203] i.e., For example, based on that a remaining packet delay budget (PDB) (i.e., “residual DB”) related to the MAC PDU is less than a threshold, the first device may be allowed to receive the MAC PDU (i.e., remaining packet delay budget is associated with a difference between the end of the DB and the delivery deadline)).
(Lee suggests based on the remaining packet delay budget related to the MAC PDU being less than a threshold, the first device may be allowed to receive the MAC PDU for satisfying the latency requirement of the MAC PDU based on the remaining packet delay budget, (see Para’s [0169] & [0203])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the downlink delay with respect to the delay budget (DB) measured by the UE as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to further include measuring the remaining packet delay budget determined by the UE as disclosed in Lee, because the motivation lies in Lee that based on the remaining packet delay budget related to the MAC PDU being less than a threshold, the first device may be allowed to receive the MAC PDU for satisfying the latency requirement of the MAC PDU based on the remaining packet delay budget.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the traffic associated with the one or more LCHs is at least one of uplink traffic, downlink traffic, or sidelink traffic; (Hu, see Para’s [0093-0094], [0096], & [0203-0204] i.e., downlink transmission delay & [0207]), but does not disclose the claim features of and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the network entity, a DB configuration that adjusts a delay parameter at the UE for at least one of the one or more LCHs, and communicate subsequent traffic with the network entity according to the DB configuration. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178).
Xu discloses a UE to receive, from the network entity, a DB configuration that adjusts a delay parameter at the UE for at least one of the one or more LCHs, (see Fig. 8 i.e., S220 & Para’s [0080-0081] i.e., a packet delay budget is a maximum value of an air interface transmission delay between the first terminal and a first network device, [0085], [0104], [0121] i.e., the first network device may determine the packet delay budget information for different logical channels or services for the first terminal, [0129] i.e., The first terminal receives the packet delay budget adjustment information (i.e., “DB configuration”) sent by the first network device, & [0165-0167] i.e., the RAN 1 determines the packet delay budget adjustment information based on at least one of first packet delay budget information, a first end-to-end delay…S220: The RAN 1 sends the packet delay budget adjustment information to the UE)
and communicate subsequent traffic with the network entity according to the DB configuration (see Para’s [0085] i.e., when the terminal is a data transmit end, the packet delay budget adjustment information is the uplink adjustment information (i.e., UE will communicate subsequent UL data according to the packet delay budget adjustment information including uplink adjustment information) [0166-0169] i.e., The determines the packet delay budget adjustment information…the UE adjusts a size of a jitter buffer based on the packet delay budget adjustment information…the UE buffers data based on the adjusted buffer, [0225] i.e., the terminal sends processed information to the network device (i.e., uplink traffic) & [0234] i.e., information sent by the terminal)
(Xu suggests the network device determines and sends the packet delay budget adjustment information to the UE based on delay statistics received from the UE for adjusting the UEs jitter buffer size for improving voice communication quality, (see Para’s [0003-0006], [0076], & [0165-0169])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the UE which sends one or more delay statistics that correspond to a delay budget for the traffic associated with the one or more logical channels as disclosed in Hu in view of Wang, and further in view of Fan to receive, from the network entity, a DB configuration that adjusts a delay parameter at the UE for at least one of one or more LCHs as disclosed in the teachings of Xu, because the motivation lies in Xu that the network device determines and sends the packet delay budget adjustment information to the UE based on delay statistics received from the UE for adjusting the UEs jitter buffer size for improving voice communication quality.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171), and further in view of Tripathi et al. US (2022/0078719).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio discloses the apparatus of claim 1 including transmitting over the uplink, the report of the one or more delay statistics from the UE to the base station in the 5G communication system (Hu, see Fig. 1 & Para’s [0086-0087], [0204], & [0207]), but does not disclose the report is transmitted via a PUCCH. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171).
Jung discloses wherein a buffer status report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (i.e., the report includes “control information”) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station (see Para’s [0006], [0014], [0022], [0040] i.e., the terminal transmits a buffer status report (BSR) message. The BSR message is one of MAC messages (control elements (CEs)) & [0069])
(Jung suggests the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service, (see Para’s [0006] & [0069])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the report including the delay information of the traffic transmitted from the UE to the network entity over the uplink as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to be comprised in the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE sent as uplink control information over an uplink channel as disclosed in Jung who discloses wherein a report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station as uplink control information, because the motivation lies in Jung that the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Jung does not disclose the claim, features of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the network entity, a configuration for the report of the one or more delay statistics, the configuration including at least one physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for the report, wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report via the at least one PUCCH resource. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Tripathi et al. US (2022/0078719).
Tripathi discloses wherein at least one UE processor (see Fig. 3) is further configured to: receive, from the network entity, a configuration for a buffer status report, (see Para [0121] i.e., UE chooses a suitable PUCCH resource configuration to convey a regular buffer status report (BSR), [0128] i.e., gNB configures 1115 UE 116 with a set of suitable PUCCH resources that UE 116 can choose from to convey the BSR & [0130]).
the configuration including at least one physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for the buffer status report, (see Para’s [0121], [0128], & [0130])
wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report via the at least one PUCCH resource (see Para’s [0121], [0128], & [0130])
(Tripathi suggests the network entity such as the gNB configures PUCCH resources to the UE for allocating resources in order for the UE to properly transmit the buffer status report for indicating the amount of data in the UE buffer for receiving uplink resource allocation for uplink transmission of the data (see Para’s [0130] & [0135-0136])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted by the UE to the network entity as uplink control information as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Jung to be transmitted over PUCCH by receiving, from the network entity, a configuration for the buffer status report, the configuration including at least one physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for the buffer status report, wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the buffer status report via the at least one PUCCH resource as disclosed in the teachings of Tripathi, because the motivation lies in Tripathi that the network entity such as the gNB configures PUCCH resources to the UE for allocating resources in order for the UE to properly transmit the buffer status report for indicating the amount of data in the UE buffer for receiving uplink resource allocation for uplink transmission of the data.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), further in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171), and further in view of Tripathi et al. US (2022/0078719) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lauridsen et al. US (2024/0314828).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Tripathi discloses the apparatus of claim 12 including the buffer status report of the one or more delay statistics which is transmitted on a PUCCH resource, but does not disclose the claim features of wherein the configuration for the report further includes at least one of: a periodicity for a periodic report to be transmitted on the at least one PUCCH resource, a code point mapping that maps values of a statistical parameter to a value in a payload of the at least one PUCCH resource, a threshold to trigger an aperiodic report on the at least one PUCCH resource, or a repetition parameter for a repeated transmission of the report. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Lauridsen et al. US (2024/0314828).
Lauridsen discloses wherein the configuration for a buffer status report further includes at least one of: a periodicity for a periodic report to be transmitted on the at least one PUCCH resource (see Para’s [0051] i.e., The IE BSR-Config (3GPP TS 38.331) defines the periodic BSR-Timer, which defines a periodicity used by the UE to send periodic BSR, [0099] i.e., control plane activity includes buffer status reporting & [0103] i.e., control plane activity from the wireless device may be performed on PUCCH).
(Lauridsen suggests configuring the UE to periodically report the buffer status report for informing the network about available uplink data at the UE for performing uplink transmission of the data, (see Para [0051])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted by the UE to the network entity according to the configuration for the report as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Tripathi to include a periodicity for a periodic BSR report to be transmitted on the at least one PUCCH resource according to the BSR configuration received by the UE as disclosed in the teachings of Lauridsen, because the motivation lies in Lauridsen for configuring the UE to periodically report the buffer status report for informing the network about available uplink data at the UE for performing uplink transmission of the data.
Claims 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178).
Regarding Claim 14, Hu discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity (see Fig. 9 i.e., network device & Para [0254]), comprising: memory (see Fig. 9 i.e., memory 32 & Para [0254]); and at least one processor (see Fig. 9 i.e., processor 31 & Para [0254]) coupled to the memory (see Fig. 9 i.e., memory 32), and based at least in part on information stored in the memory (see Fig. 9 i.e., memory 32 & Para [0254] i.e., The memory 32 may store various instructions, to complete various processing functions and implement method steps in this application & [0255] i.e., the memory 32 is configured to store computer-executable program code, and the program code includes instructions executed by the processor 31), the at least one processor is configured to (see Para’s [0254-0255] i.e., processor 31 executes the instructions to perform processing actions of the network device):
receive, from a user equipment (UE) (see Fig. 1 i.e., terminal device & Fig. 10), a report associated with traffic that is associated with one or more logical channels (LCHs), (see Para’s [0092-0093] i.e., QoS flows are mapped to a data radio bearer (DRB) (i.e., “logical channel”), [0096] i.e., service on a logical channel, [0204], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal device collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies (i.e., “report”) the network device of a corresponding result. The terminal device may feedback (i.e., “report”) delay information corresponding to each data packet)
the report including an indication of measurements associated with one or more delay statistics, measured at the UE, that correspond to a delay budget (DB) for the traffic that is associated with the one or more LCHs; (see Para’s [0092-0093], [0096] i.e., service on a logical channel, [0106], [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal device collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies (i.e., “report”) the network device of a corresponding result. The terminal device may feedback (“report”) delay information corresponding to each data packet)
wherein the one or more delay statistics include: an uplink delay (see Para’s [0011-0015] i.e., when the foregoing uplink transmission delay measurement is performed by the terminal device triggered by the network device, before the network device obtains the transmission delay measurement result, the method further includes: The network device sends first indication information to the terminal device. The first indication information is used to trigger the terminal device to perform the uplink transmission delay measurement [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies the network device of a corresponding result)
Hu does not disclose wherein the one or more delay statistics include: a maximum uplink delay from a third time when second data is generated by an application to a fourth time when a second transport block (TB) with the second data is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146).
Zhou discloses wherein one or more delay statistics include: a maximum uplink delay from a third time when second data is generated by an application to a fourth time when the second data is transmitted (see Para’s [0066-0067] i.e., The maximum delay allowed by the uplink data indicates a delay of transmitting the uplink data that the user equipment can tolerate, [0090] i.e., For example, the determination unit 210 may adjust the parameters of the sleep mode according to the maximum delay allowed by the uplink data of the user equipment. Here, since there may be a time difference (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) between a time instance when the user equipment generates the uplink data (i.e., “third time”) and the data transmission window (i.e., fourth time when the data is transmitted), the determination unit 210 may determine to adjust the parameters of the sleep mode in a case that the time difference is greater than the maximum delay allowed by the uplink data (i.e., the “time difference” is interpreted as the claimed “maximum uplink delay” since it is a measurement of the uplink delay of the uplink data such as the time difference between a time instant when the data is generated by the UE and the data transmission window (i.e., when the data is transmitted), [0091] i.e., the UE transmits data in the data transmission window, & [0192] i.e., UE application layer)
(Zhou suggests the determination unit 210 of the electronic equipment 200 (i.e., “network entity”) uses the time difference information (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) to schedule parameters of the sleep mode of the UE so as to satisfy the maximum delay of the uplink data of the user equipment and ensure the delay requirement for delivering the data on time (see Para’s [0067], [0090], [0092], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the one or more delay statistics reported to the network including uplink transmission delay as disclosed in Hu to report a delay statistic such as the maximum uplink delay disclosed in the teachings of Zhou, because the motivation lies in Zhou that the determination unit 210 of the electronic equipment 200 (i.e., “network entity”) uses the time difference information (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) to schedule parameters of the sleep mode of the UE so as to satisfy the maximum delay of the uplink data of the user equipment and ensure the delay requirement for delivering the data on time.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou does not disclose a second transport block with the second data is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982).
Nishio discloses a transport block with uplink data that is generated by the UE (see Fig. 5 i.e., transmission data generator 205 of UE 200) is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), (see Para’s [0073], & [0174-0176] i.e., transmission data generator 205 determines a TB size based on the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission)
(Nishio suggests the TB size is configured according to the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission in which the data amount to be transmitted increases as the number of slots increases so that throughput can be improved and a traffic type with a latency or reliability requirement can be accommodated efficiently (see Para’s [0131], [0210-0211], & [0319])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the uplink data that is generated and transmitted by the UE as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou to include a second transport block with the second data to be transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on the teachings of Nishio who discloses a transport block with uplink data that is generated by the UE is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), because the motivation lies in Nishio that the TB size is configured according to the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission in which the data amount to be transmitted increases as the number of slots increases so that throughput can be improved and a traffic type with a latency or reliability requirement can be accommodated efficiently.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio does not disclose the claim feature of transmitting, for the UE, a DB configuration that adjusts a delay parameter at the UE for at least one of the one or more LCHs. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178).
Xu discloses transmitting, for a UE, from a network entity, a DB configuration that adjusts a delay parameter at the UE for at least one of one or more LCHs, (see Fig. 8 i.e., S220 & Para’s [0080-0081] i.e., a packet delay budget is a maximum value of an air interface transmission delay between the first terminal and a first network device, [0085], [0104], [0121] i.e., the first network device may determine the packet delay budget information for different logical channels or services for the first terminal, [0129] i.e., The first terminal receives the packet delay budget adjustment information (i.e., “DB configuration”) sent by the first network device, & [0165-0167] i.e., the RAN 1 determines the packet delay budget adjustment information based on at least one of first packet delay budget information, a first end-to-end delay…S220: The RAN 1 sends the packet delay budget adjustment information to the UE)
(Xu suggests the network device determines and sends the packet delay budget adjustment information to the UE based on delay statistics received from the UE for adjusting the UEs jitter buffer size for improving voice communication quality, (see Para’s [0003-0006], [0076], & [0165-0169])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the network entity which receives from the UE, the one or more delay statistics that correspond to a delay budget for the traffic associated with the one or more logical channels as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to transmit a DB configuration that adjusts a delay parameter at the UE for at least one of one or more LCHs as disclosed in the teachings of Xu, because the motivation lies in Xu that the network device determines and sends the packet delay budget adjustment information to the UE based on delay statistics received from the UE for adjusting the UEs jitter buffer size for improving voice communication quality
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Hu in view of Wang, further in view of Fan, and further in view of Xu discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the one or more delay statistics that correspond to the DB (see Para’s [0004] & [0106] i.e., latency requirement of URLLC service) include: a downlink delay from a first time when a PDCCH for a first TB is received to a second time when first data is delivered to an application, (Hu, see Para’s [0204] i.e., a terminal device collects statistics about a delay between a moment at which the last segment of the SDU is correctly by the terminal device received (i.e., moment at which the last segment of the SDU is correctly received includes PDCCH reception for correctly receiving the SDU) and a moment at which an SDAP layer or a PDCP layer of the terminal device submits the SDU to an upper layer (i.e., the SDU will be submitted (i.e., “delivered”) to an application) & [0207] i.e., the terminal collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side)
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), further in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171), further in view of Kang et al. US (2022/0124777), and further in view of and further in view of Babaei et al. US (2018/0368132).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu discloses the apparatus of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the report is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171).
Jung discloses wherein a buffer status report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station (see Para’s [0006], [0014], [0022], [0040] i.e., the terminal transmits a buffer status report (BSR) message. The BSR message is one of MAC messages (control elements (CEs)) & [0069])
(Jung suggests the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service, (see Para’s [0006] & [0069])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the report including the delay information of the traffic transmitted from the UE to the network entity in the uplink as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu to be comprised in the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE disclosed in Jung who discloses wherein a report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station, because the motivation lies in Jung that the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Xu, and further in view of Jung does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the MAC-CE report is sent on the PUSCH. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Kang et al. US (2022/0124777).
Kang discloses wherein a buffer status report (i.e., report) is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) on the PUSCH, (see Para [0468] i.e., a buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted in a corresponding PUSCH because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured)
(Kang suggests the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted on the PUSCH for indicating a UE’s buffer status to the network and because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured for properly sending the BSR MAC-CE, (see Para’s [0323], [0345], & [0468])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the MAC-CE buffer status report transmitted from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Xu, and further in view of Jung to be sent on the PUSCH as disclosed in Kang who discloses wherein a buffer status report is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) on the PUSCH, because the motivation lies in Kang that the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted on the PUSCH for indicating a UE’s buffer status to the network and because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured for properly sending the BSR MAC-CE.
The references combined does not disclose wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report responsive to at least one of: a layer 1 (L1), a layer 2 (L2), or a layer 3 (L3) signaling received from the network entity; or a MAC service data unit (MAC SDU), from a LCH of the one or more LCHs, having an experienced delay at the UE that satisfies a threshold. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Babaei et al. US (2018/0368132).
Babaei discloses wherein to transmit a buffer status report (BSR), the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report responsive to at least one of: a layer 1 (L1), a layer 2 (L2), or a layer 3 (L3) signaling received from the network entity (see Para [0262] i.e., In an example, the MAC entity in the wireless device may trigger a BSR in response to receiving an activation/starting command (e.g., a MAC-CE (i.e., “layer 2 signaling”) and/or an RRC message (i.e., “layer 3 signaling”) from the base station).
(Babaei suggests the triggered BSR is transmitted for properly indicating buffer status for a logical channel of the wireless device and for appropriately scheduling resource allocation for the wireless device based on the BSR (see Para’s [0202], [0228-0229] & [0238-0239])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Xu, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Kang to transmit the buffer status report responsive to at least one of: a layer 2 (L2), or a layer 3 (L3) signaling received from the network entity as disclosed in the teachings of Babaei, because the motivation lies in Babaei that the triggered BSR is transmitted for properly indicating buffer status for a logical channel of the wireless device and for appropriately scheduling resource allocation for the wireless device based on the BSR.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), further in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yi et al. US (2019/0141550).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu discloses the apparatus of claim 14, but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the report includes the one or more delay statistics for multiple LCHs in response to at least one LCH having an experienced delay that satisfies a threshold. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Yi et al. US (2019/0141550).
Yi discloses at least one UE processor is configured to: report one or more delay statistics for multiple LCHs in response to at least one LCH having an experienced delay that satisfies a threshold (see Fig. 15 & Para’s [0070] i.e., logical channels are therefore grouped into logical channel groups and the reporting is done per group, [0072], [0116], [0125], [0129], & [0141], [0145-0146] i.e., grouping logical channels to a LCG, & [0150] i.e., for performing UL packet delay measurement per LCG, the UE calculates an average of UL packet delay of each LCG using UL packet delays of LCPs (i.e., “logical channels”). For each LCG, the UE sums up all the UL packet delays of LCPs having RBs whose UL packet delay is above a threshold (i.e., LCH having experienced delay that satisfies a threshold) during the measurement period, and obtains an UL packet delay of the same LCG (i.e., multiple LCHs)). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the UL packet delay measurement per LCG as disclosed in (Para [0150]), can be similarly performed for downlink delay based on (Para [0085]) of Yi which discloses packet delay measurements may also be performed in the downlink.
(Yi suggests it is possible to reduce signaling overhead by grouping logical channels to a LCG and by reporting the DL/UL packet measurements per LCG, the UE can report DL/UL packet measurements more efficiently (see Para [0146])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the one or more delay statistics reported from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu to report the one or more delay statistics for multiple LCHs in response to at least one LCH having an experienced delay that satisfies a threshold as disclosed in the teachings of Yi, because the motivation lies in Yi that it is possible to reduce signaling overhead by grouping logical channels to a LCG and by reporting the DL/UL packet measurements per LCG, the UE can report DL/UL packet measurements more efficiently.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sha et al. US (2021/0160791).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose the claim features of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a scheduling request to the network entity for a resource to transmit the report; and receive, from the network entity, a grant of the resource, wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report in the resource granted by the network entity. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Sha et al. US (2021/0160791).
Sha discloses wherein at least one processor of a UE (see Fig. 9 i.e., UE) is further configured to: transmit a scheduling request to the network entity for a resource to transmit the report; (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0074] i.e., BSR, [0081], & [0084-0087] i.e., when the scheduling request (SR) includes the big scheduling request indication, one of following information is sent to the terminal: uplink scheduling grant resource required for transmitting a buffer status report BSR))
and receive, from the network entity, a grant of the resource (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0084-0087] i.e., when the scheduling request (SR) includes the big scheduling request indication, one of following information is sent to the terminal: uplink scheduling grant resource required for transmitting a buffer status report BSR ), wherein to transmit the report, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the report in the resource granted by the network entity (see Fig. 9 & Para’s [0074] i.e., BSR & [0084-0087] i.e., when the scheduling request (SR) includes the big scheduling request indication, one of following information is sent to the terminal: uplink scheduling grant resource required for transmitting a buffer status report BSR)).
(Sha suggests buffer status report (BSR) which indicates the UEs state of data volume stored in its buffer is important reference information in order for an eNB to perform reasonable radio resource scheduling for the UE and the requested uplink scheduling resource grant is required in order for the UE to properly transmit the BSR, (see Para’s [0003-0004], [0074], & [0084-0087])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu to transmit the BSR by transmitting the scheduling request to the network entity for a resource to transmit the report; and receive, from the network entity, the grant of the resource for transmitting the BSR to the network entity such as the base station as disclosed in the teachings of Sha, because the motivation lies in Sha that the buffer status report (BSR) which indicates the UEs state of data volume stored in its buffer is important reference information in order for an eNB to perform reasonable radio resource scheduling for the UE and the requested uplink scheduling resource grant is required in order for the UE to properly transmit the BSR.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chou et al. US (2016/0338074).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, for the UE, an updated DB configuration that adjusts the delay parameter at the UE for the at least one of the one or more LCHs dynamically based on delay statistics received from the UE, (see Fig. 8 i.e., S220 & Para’s [0004-0005], [0076], [0080-0081] i.e., a packet delay budget is a maximum value of an air interface transmission delay between the first terminal and a first network device, [0085], [0104], [0121] i.e., the first network device may determine the packet delay budget information for different logical channels or services for the first terminal, [0129] i.e., The first terminal receives the packet delay budget adjustment information (i.e., “DB configuration”) sent by the first network device, & [0165-0167] i.e., the RAN 1 determines the packet delay budget adjustment information based on at least one of first packet delay budget information, a first end-to-end delay…S220: The RAN 1 sends the packet delay budget adjustment information to the UE), and communicate further subsequent traffic with the UE according to the DB configuration, (see Para’s [0085] i.e., when the terminal is a data transmit end, the packet delay budget adjustment information is the uplink adjustment information (i.e., UE will communicate subsequent UL data according to the packet delay budget adjustment information including uplink adjustment information) [0166-0169] i.e., The determines the packet delay budget adjustment information…the UE adjusts a size of a jitter buffer based on the packet delay budget adjustment information…the UE buffers data based on the adjusted buffer, [0225] i.e., the terminal sends processed information to the network device (i.e., uplink traffic) & [0234] i.e., information sent by the terminal), but does not disclose the claim features of the update is based on a subsequent report received from the UE that is associated with subsequent traffic for the one or more LCHs, the subsequent report including a delta indication of a difference between of the one or more delay statistics that correspond to the DB and one or subsequently measured more delay statistics that correspond to the DB. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chou et al. US (2016/0338074).
Chou discloses a scheduling configuration update is based on a subsequent report received from the UE that is associated with subsequent traffic for the one or more LCHs, (see Para’s [0005], [0037-0038] i.e., packet delay measurements, & [0041] i.e., For delay report, the UE can only indicate delta information (the difference between last report)).
Chou discloses a subsequent report from a UE including a delta indication of a difference between one or more delay statistics in a prior report and one or more subsequently measured delay statistics (see Para’s [0037-0038] i.e., packet delay measurements & [0041] i.e., For delay report, the UE can only indicate delta information (the difference between last report)).
(Chou suggests upon receiving the delay report by the base station, the eNB may utilize that information for LWA scheduling (e.g., change the traffic dispatching ratio) (i.e., “updated scheduling information”) in which advantage of this solution is that LWA can provide better control and utilization of resources on both links and can increase the aggregate throughout for the user (see Para’s [0005] & [0041]))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the updated DB configuration that adjusts the delay parameter at the UE dynamically for the at least one of the one or more LCHs based on delay statistics received from the UE as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu to be updated based on receiving a subsequent report based on the teachings of Chou who discloses a scheduling configuration update is based on a subsequent report received from the UE that is associated with subsequent traffic for the one or more LCHs and that includes a delta indication of the difference between the one or more delay statistics in a prior report and one or more subsequently measured delay statistics as disclosed in the teachings of Chou, because the motivation lies in Chou that upon receiving the delay report by the base station, the eNB may utilize that information for LWA scheduling (e.g., change the traffic dispatching ratio) in which advantage of this solution is that LWA can provide better control and utilization of resources on both links and can increase the aggregate throughout for the user.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2021/0014178) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171), further in view of Tripathi et al. US (2022/0078719), and further in view of Lauridsen et al. US (2024/0314828).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu discloses the apparatus of claim 14 including transmitting over the uplink, the report of the one or more delay statistics from the UE to the base station in the 5G communication system (Hu, see Fig. 1 & Para’s [0086-0087], [0204], & [0207]), but does not disclose the report is transmitted via a PUCCH. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171).
Jung discloses wherein a buffer status report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (i.e., the report includes “control information”) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station (see Para’s [0006], [0014], [0022], [0040] i.e., the terminal transmits a buffer status report (BSR) message. The BSR message is one of MAC messages (control elements (CEs)) & [0069])
(Jung suggests the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service, (see Para’s [0006] & [0069])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the report including the delay information of the traffic transmitted from the UE to the network entity over the uplink as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Xu to be comprised in the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE sent as uplink control information over an uplink channel as disclosed in Jung who discloses wherein a report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station as uplink control information, because the motivation lies in Jung that the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Xu, and further in view of Jung does not disclose the claim, features of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, from the UE, a configuration for the report for the one or more delay statistics, the configuration including at least one physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for the report. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Tripathi et al. US (2022/0078719).
Tripathi discloses wherein at least one UE processor (see Fig. 3) is further configured to: receive, from the network entity, a configuration for a buffer status report, (see Para [0121] i.e., UE chooses a suitable PUCCH resource configuration to convey a regular buffer status report (BSR), [0128] i.e., gNB configures 1115 UE 116 with a set of suitable PUCCH resources that UE 116 can choose from to convey the BSR & [0130]).
the configuration including at least one physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for the buffer status report, (see Para’s [0121], [0128], & [0130])
(Tripathi suggests the network entity such as the gNB configures PUCCH resources to the UE for allocating resources in order for the UE to properly transmit the buffer status report for indicating the amount of data in the UE buffer for receiving uplink resource allocation for uplink transmission of the data (see Para’s [0130] & [0135-0136])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted by the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Xu, and further in view of Jung to receive, from the network entity, a configuration for the buffer status report, the configuration including at least one physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for the buffer status report as disclosed in the teachings of Tripathi, because the motivation lies in Tripathi that the network entity such as the gNB configures PUCCH resources to the UE for allocating resources in order for the UE to properly transmit the buffer status report for indicating the amount of data in the UE buffer for receiving uplink resource allocation for uplink transmission of the data.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Xu, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Tripathi does not disclose the claim features of wherein the configuration for the report further includes at least one of: a periodicity for a periodic report to be transmitted on the at least one PUCCH resource, a code point mapping that maps values of a statistical parameter to a value in a payload of the at least one PUCCH resource, a threshold to trigger an aperiodic report on the at least one PUCCH resource, or a repetition parameter for a repeated transmission of the report. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Lauridsen et al. US (2024/0314828).
Lauridsen discloses wherein the configuration for a buffer status report further includes at least one of: a periodicity for a periodic report to be transmitted on the at least one PUCCH resource (see Para’s [0051] i.e., The IE BSR-Config (3GPP TS 38.331) defines the periodic BSR-Timer, which defines a periodicity used by the UE to send periodic BSR, [0099] i.e., control plane activity includes buffer status reporting & [0103] i.e., control plane activity from the wireless device may be performed on PUCCH).
(Lauridsen suggests configuring the UE to periodically report the buffer status report for informing the network about available uplink data at the UE for performing uplink transmission of the data, (see Para [0051])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the buffer status report transmitted by the UE to the network entity according to the configuration for the report as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Xu, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Tripathi to include a periodicity for a periodic BSR report to be transmitted on the at least one PUCCH resource according to the BSR configuration received by the UE as disclosed in the teachings of Lauridsen, because the motivation lies in Lauridsen for configuring the UE to periodically report the buffer status report for informing the network about available uplink data at the UE for performing uplink transmission of the data.
Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), and further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), and further in view of Zhang et al. US (2024/0406789).
Regarding Claim 20, Hu discloses a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: measure one or more delay statistics, at the UE, (see Para’s [0011-0015], [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or a downlink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies the network device of a corresponding result)
that correspond to a delay budget (DB) for traffic associated with one or more logical channels (LCHs); (see Para’s [0003] i.e., ultra-reliable and low-latency communication (URLLC) service & [0004] i.e., With development of communication requirements, low-latency performance needs to be ensured for more services. For example, an URLLC service described above requires that a delay is within 0.5 ms (i.e., “delay budget”), [0092-0093] i.e., QoS flows are mapped to a data radio bearer (DRB) (i.e., “logical channel”), [0096] i.e., data transmission service is on a logical channel, & [0106] i.e., the URLLC service described above requires that a delay is within 0.5 ms (i.e., “delay budget”). Therefore, to ensure service performance, a delay of a current network needs to be measured, and delay performance of the current network needs to be learned & [0207])
wherein the one or more delay statistics include: an uplink delay (see Para’s [0011-0015] i.e., when the foregoing uplink transmission delay measurement is performed by the terminal device triggered by the network device, before the network device obtains the transmission delay measurement result, the method further includes: The network device sends first indication information to the terminal device. The first indication information is used to trigger the terminal device to perform the uplink transmission delay measurement [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies the network device of a corresponding result)
and transmitting, to a network entity (see Fig. 1 i.e., radio access network device 120), a report associated with the traffic for the one or more LCHs, (see Para’s [0092-0093] i.e., QoS flow mapped to data radio bearer (DRB), [0096] i.e., service on a logical channel, [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal device collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies (i.e., “report”) the network device of a corresponding result. The terminal device may feedback (i.e., “report”) delay information corresponding to each data packet)
the report including an indication of the one or more delay statistics that correspond to the DB, (see Para’s [0015], [0205], & [0207] i.e., After the terminal device collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side, the terminal device notifies (i.e., “report”) the network device of a corresponding result. The terminal device may feedback (“report”) delay information corresponding to each data packet)
Hu does not disclose wherein the one or more delay statistics include: a maximum uplink delay from a third time when second data is generated by an application to a fourth time when a second transport block (TB) with the second data is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146).
Zhou discloses wherein one or more delay statistics include: a maximum uplink delay from a third time when second data is generated by an application to a fourth time when the second data is transmitted (see Para’s [0066-0067] i.e., The maximum delay allowed by the uplink data indicates a delay of transmitting the uplink data that the user equipment can tolerate, [0090] i.e., For example, the determination unit 210 may adjust the parameters of the sleep mode according to the maximum delay allowed by the uplink data of the user equipment. Here, since there may be a time difference (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) between a time instance when the user equipment generates the uplink data (i.e., “third time”) and the data transmission window (i.e., fourth time when the data is transmitted), the determination unit 210 may determine to adjust the parameters of the sleep mode in a case that the time difference is greater than the maximum delay allowed by the uplink data (i.e., the “time difference” is interpreted as the claimed “maximum uplink delay” since it is a measurement of the uplink delay of the uplink data such as the time difference between a time instant when the data is generated by the UE and the data transmission window (i.e., when the data is transmitted), [0091] i.e., the UE transmits data in the data transmission window, & [0192] i.e., UE application layer)
(Zhou suggests the determination unit 210 of the electronic equipment 200 (i.e., “network entity”) uses the time difference information (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) to schedule parameters of the sleep mode of the UE so as to satisfy the maximum delay of the uplink data of the user equipment and ensure the delay requirement for delivering the data on time (see Para’s [0067], [0090], [0092], & [0104])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the one or more delay statistics reported to the network including uplink transmission delay as disclosed in Hu to report a delay statistic such as the maximum uplink delay disclosed in the teachings of Zhou, because the motivation lies in Zhou that the determination unit 210 of the electronic equipment 200 (i.e., “network entity”) uses the time difference information (i.e., “maximum uplink delay”) to schedule parameters of the sleep mode of the UE so as to satisfy the maximum delay of the uplink data of the user equipment and ensure the delay requirement for delivering the data on time.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou does not disclose a second transport block with the second data is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982).
Nishio discloses a transport block with uplink data that is generated by the UE (see Fig. 5 i.e., transmission data generator 205 of UE 200) is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), (see Para’s [0073], & [0174-0176] i.e., transmission data generator 205 determines a TB size based on the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission)
(Nishio suggests the TB size is configured according to the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission in which the data amount to be transmitted increases as the number of slots increases so that throughput can be improved and a traffic type with a latency or reliability requirement can be accommodated efficiently (see Para’s [0131], [0210-0211], & [0319])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the uplink data that is generated and transmitted by the UE as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou to include a second transport block with the second data to be transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on the teachings of Nishio who discloses a transport block with uplink data that is generated by the UE is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), because the motivation lies in Nishio that the TB size is configured according to the number of slots used for the PUSCH transmission in which the data amount to be transmitted increases as the number of slots increases so that throughput can be improved and a traffic type with a latency or reliability requirement can be accommodated efficiently.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio does not disclose wherein the one or more delay statistics include at least one of a second order delay statistic or a variance for the one or more delay statistics taken over a window of time. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhang et al. US (2024/0406789).
Zhang discloses wherein the one or more delay statistics include a variance for the one or more delay statistics taken over a window of time (see Para’s [0006-0008] i.e., the UE transmits XR-service related information to the network device as feedback information…the XR-service related information includes at least one of an uplink service model parameter, [0010] i.e., the uplink service model parameter includes at least…a variance of the uplink network jitter delays (i.e., uplink network jitter delays may be a “delay statistic” measured for multiple packets that is calculated over a period of time which may be a (i.e., “time window”), [0026-0027], [0029-0030], [0037] i.e., XR-service related information transmitted by the UE through the feedback resource (i.e., the XR-service related information includes an uplink service model parameter which includes a variance of the uplink network jitter delays), [0044], [0046], & [0111] i.e., data packets transmitted by the UEs).
(Zhang suggests the XR-service related information which includes the one or more delay statistics includes an uplink service data packet delay budget associated with the service in order for the network device (i.e., gNB) to perform scheduling optimization and resource allocation optimization so as to increase the XR capacity which refers to a maximum quantity of UEs in the cell meeting successful data packet transmission within the packet delay budget requirement, (see Para’s [0044], [0047], [0110-0111], [0116-0121] & [0197-0198])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the one or more delay statistics as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, and further in view of Nishio to include the variance for the one or more delay statistics reported as feedback from the UE to a network entity as disclosed in the teachings of Zhang, because the motivation lies in Zhang that the XR-service related information which includes the one or more delay statistics reported from the UE to the network includes an uplink service data packet delay budget associated with the service in order for the network device (i.e., gNB) to perform scheduling optimization and resource allocation optimization so as to increase the XR capacity which refers to a maximum quantity of UEs in the cell meeting successful data packet transmission within the packet delay budget requirement.
Regarding Claim 25 the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more delay statistics that correspond to the DB (Hu, see Para’s [0004] & [0106] i.e., latency requirement of URLLC service) include: a downlink delay from a first time when a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for a first transport block (TB) is received to a second time when data is delivered to an application;, (Hu, see Para’s [0204] i.e., a terminal device collects statistics about a delay between a moment at which the last segment of the SDU is correctly by the terminal device received (i.e., moment at which the last segment of the SDU is correctly received includes PDCCH reception for correctly receiving the SDU) and a moment at which an SDAP layer or a PDCP layer of the terminal device submits the SDU to an upper layer (i.e., the SDU will be submitted (i.e., “delivered”) to an application) & [0207] i.e., the terminal collects statistics about processing time of an uplink data packet or downlink data packet on the terminal device side)
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US (2021/0367683) in view of Zhou et al. US (2023/0284146), further in view of Nishio et al. US (2023/0388982), and further in view of Zhang et al. US (2024/0406789) as applied to claim 20 above, further in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171), and further in view of Kang et al. US (2022/0124777).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Zhang discloses the method of claim 20 including wherein the report is transmitted to the based station (Hu, see Para [0207] i.e., the terminal feeds back delay information to the network device), but does not disclose wherein the report is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Jung et al. US (2017/0245171).
Jung discloses wherein a report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station (see Para’s [0006], [0014], [0022], [0040] i.e., the terminal transmits a buffer status report (BSR) message. The BSR message is one of MAC messages (control elements (CEs)) & [0069])
(Jung suggests the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service, (see Para’s [0006] & [0069])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the report including the delay information of the traffic transmitted from the UE to the network entity in the uplink as disclosed in H Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, and further in view of Zhang to be comprised in the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE disclosed in Jung who discloses wherein a report comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) includes delay related information of packets that is transmitted from the UE to the base station, because the motivation lies in Jung that the BSR includes the delay related information of the packets in order for the base station to perform resource allocation to meet the requirements of the low latency service.
The combination of Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Zhang, and further in view of Jung does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the MAC-CE report is sent on the PUSCH. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Kang et al. US (2022/0124777).
Kang discloses wherein a buffer status report (i.e., report) is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) on the PUSCH, (see Para [0468] i.e., a buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted in a corresponding PUSCH because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured)
(Kang suggests the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted on the PUSCH for indicating a UE’s buffer status to the network and because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured for properly sending the BSR MAC-CE, (see Para’s [0323], [0345], & [0468])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the MAC-CE buffer status report transmitted from the UE to the network entity as disclosed in Hu in view of Zhou, further in view of Nishio, further in view of Zhang, and further in view of Jung to be sent on the PUSCH as disclosed in Kang who discloses wherein a buffer status report is comprised in a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) on the PUSCH, because the motivation lies in Kang that the buffer status reporting (BSR) MAC-CE is transmitted on the PUSCH for indicating a UE’s buffer status to the network and because a PUSCH resource is allocated/configured for properly sending the BSR MAC-CE.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-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, Huy 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights