DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Lee nor Zhu teaches that the one or more respective conditions are based on a packet delay threshold or a buffer size threshold, and further that neither reference teaches transmitting a scheduling request based on a remaining packet delay budget of an uplink message and a buffer size of the UE. This argument is not persuasive.
Lee teaches that scheduling decisions are based on sidelink buffer status reporting (SL BSR) and latency requirements (Lee ¶¶[0081], [0084]–[0085]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that SL BSR reflects the amount of buffered data at the UE (i.e., buffer size), and that latency requirements correspond to delay constraints associated with data transmission. In practical LTE/NR systems, such delay constraints are implemented in terms of a remaining packet delay budget for a packet awaiting transmission. Thus, Lee teaches the use of both buffer size and delay-related metrics in determining when transmission resources should be requested or allocated.
Although Lee describes sidelink operation, the underlying scheduling principles—namely, using buffer occupancy and delay constraints to govern transmission decisions—are equally applicable to uplink scheduling requests, as both involve requesting transmission resources based on UE data state and timing requirements. Applying these known scheduling principles from sidelink to uplink represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Applicant further argues that Zhu does not disclose threshold-based conditions or multiple contention-based resource sets with respective conditions. This argument is not persuasive because Zhu teaches that a scheduling request is transmitted when “conditions for a scheduling request are fulfilled” (Zhu ¶[0027]). When combined with Lee, which provides specific scheduling parameters (buffer status and latency), it would have been obvious to implement Zhu’s condition-based triggering using such parameters, including evaluating buffer size and remaining packet delay budget to determine when a scheduling request should be transmitted.
Applicant also argues that the Office Action improperly relied on “common knowledge” without citation. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Lee and Zhu and the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art regarding how scheduling decisions are implemented in LTE/NR systems. The use of buffer occupancy and delay constraints to trigger scheduling requests is a direct and predictable implementation of the teachings of Lee and Zhu and does not rely on unsupported assertions.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 14 and 28 recite “a ultra-reliable…”; it is suggested to change to “an ultra-reliable…” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8-15, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al (US Pub. 2017/0265181) in view of Lee et al (US Pub. 2018/0263062) or Zhu et al (US Pub. 2015/0195854).
Regarding claim 1, Patel et al. (US Pub. 2017/0265181) discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to:, as evidenced by Patel’s disclosure of UE architecture including processor(s) and memory (Fig. 10; ¶[0065]).
Patel discloses receive a message indicating a plurality of contention-based resource sets dedicated for scheduling requests, as Patel teaches receiving configuration of contention-based uplink resources for scheduling requests (¶[0068]).
Patel discloses each contention-based resource set of the plurality of contention-based resource sets being associated with one or more respective conditions, as Patel teaches selecting among contention-based resources based on conditions associated with the resources (¶¶[0069]–[0070]).
Patel discloses transmit, using a resource of a contention-based resource set of the plurality of contention-based resource sets, a scheduling request to request uplink resources for the UE based at least in part on satisfaction of the one or more respective conditions for the contention-based resource set and on a successful contention-based procedure for the contention-based resource set, as Patel teaches transmitting a scheduling request using a selected contention-based resource upon satisfying conditions and successful contention (¶¶[0069]–[0070]).
Patel does not disclose wherein the one or more respective conditions are based at least in part on a packet delay threshold, a buffer size threshold, or both; and wherein transmitting the scheduling request is based at least in part on a remaining packet delay budget of an uplink message associated with the scheduling request, a buffer size of the UE, or both.
Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0263062) discloses scheduling decisions based on sidelink buffer status reporting (SL BSR) and latency requirements (¶¶[0081], [0084]–[0085]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that SL BSR reflects the amount of buffered data at the UE (i.e., buffer size), and that latency requirements correspond to delay constraints associated with data transmission. In practical LTE/NR systems, such delay constraints are implemented in terms of a remaining packet delay budget for a packet awaiting transmission. Thus, Lee teaches using buffer size and delay-related metrics corresponding to buffer size thresholds and packet delay thresholds, and further corresponding to determining transmission behavior based on buffer size and remaining packet delay budget.
Alternatively, Zhu et al. (US Pub. 2015/0195854) discloses transmitting a scheduling request when “conditions for a scheduling request are fulfilled” (¶[0027]). When combined with Lee, which provides specific scheduling parameters (buffer status and latency), it would have been obvious to implement Zhu’s condition-based triggering using such parameters, including evaluating buffer size and remaining packet delay budget to determine when to transmit a scheduling request.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Patel to incorporate the scheduling parameters of Lee and/or Zhu, including buffer size and delay constraints (such as remaining packet delay budget), in order to determine satisfaction of conditions and trigger scheduling requests, thereby improving QoS and efficient use of uplink resources.
Regarding claim 8, Patel further discloses that the UE receives a message indicating a plurality of contention-based resource sets for scheduling requests (para. [0068]). However, Patel does not disclose that this message includes the respective conditions associated with each resource set. Zhu further discloses that contention-based resources may be associated with conditions such as latency (para. [0081]). It would have been obvious to modify Patel to include such condition indications for enabling condition-based access.
Regarding claim 9, Patel further discloses that the plurality of contention-based resource sets may be configured via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (para. [0068]). While Patel does not explicitly disclose receiving a layer 1 or layer 2 signal for activation, such signaling is a well-known technique in LTE and NR systems to enable or disable preconfigured resources dynamically. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement activation signaling at L1/L2 to support flexible resource control.
Regarding claim 10, Patel further discloses that the UE performs a contention-based scheduling request by randomly selecting a resource from among a contention-based resource set and monitoring for acknowledgment to determine whether the request was successful (para. [0069]–[0070]). This satisfies the requirement of random selection and contention resolution as part of the transmission procedure.
Regarding claim 11, Lee further discloses that the UE transmits the scheduling request using a cyclic shift mapped to a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI). (para. 63, RNTI)
Regarding claim 12, Lee further discloses that the contention-based resource sets are periodic. (para. 77, periodic DL/UL resources)
Regarding claim 13, Patel further discloses associating each contention-based resource set with a respective logical channel. (para. 53, communicating over logical channels)
Regarding claim 14, Lee further discloses wherein the uplink resources are for theuplink message, and wherein the uplink message comprises a virtual reality uplink message or an ultra-reliable low latency communication uplink message. (para. 81).
Regarding claim 15, Patel et al. (US Pub. 2017/0265181) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a message indicating a plurality of contention-based resource sets dedicated for scheduling requests, each contention-based resource set of the plurality of contention-based resource sets being associated with one or more respective conditions; and transmit, using a resource of a contention-based resource set of the plurality of contention-based resource sets, a scheduling request to request uplink resources for a user equipment (UE) based at least in part on satisfaction of the one or more respective conditions for the contention-based resource set and on a successful contention-based procedure for the contention-based resource set, as evidenced by Patel’s disclosure of UE operation controlled by processor-executable instructions for receiving configuration of contention-based resources and transmitting scheduling requests (¶¶[0065], [0068]–[0070]).
Patel does not disclose wherein the one or more respective conditions are based at least in part on a packet delay threshold, a buffer size threshold, or both; and wherein transmitting the scheduling request is based at least in part on a remaining packet delay budget of an uplink message associated with the scheduling request, a buffer size of the UE, or both.
Lee et al. (US Pub. 2018/0263062) discloses scheduling decisions based on sidelink buffer status reporting (SL BSR) and latency requirements (¶¶[0081], [0084]–[0085]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that SL BSR reflects the amount of buffered data at the UE (i.e., buffer size), and that latency requirements correspond to delay constraints associated with data transmission. In practical LTE/NR systems, such delay constraints are implemented in terms of a remaining packet delay budget for a packet awaiting transmission. Thus, Lee teaches using buffer size and delay-related metrics corresponding to buffer size thresholds and packet delay thresholds, and further corresponding to determining transmission behavior based on buffer size and remaining packet delay budget.
Alternatively, Zhu et al. (US Pub. 2015/0195854) discloses transmitting a scheduling request when “conditions for a scheduling request are fulfilled” (¶[0027]). When combined with Lee, which provides specific scheduling parameters (buffer status and latency), it would have been obvious to implement Zhu’s condition-based triggering using such parameters, including evaluating buffer size and remaining packet delay budget to determine when to transmit a scheduling request.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Patel to incorporate the scheduling parameters of Lee and/or Zhu, including buffer size and delay constraints (such as remaining packet delay budget), in order to determine satisfaction of conditions and trigger scheduling requests, thereby improving QoS and efficient use of uplink resources.
Claims 22-28 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 8-14, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claim 29 recites a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 30 recites a method for wireless communication at a network entity, corresponding to the apparatus of claim 15, and is thus similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 16-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468