DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-12 have been examined and are pending.
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 Remarks/Arguments
Status of Claim(s) as of the Final Rejection (“Final”) mailed November 25, 2025:
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (“Stage-3 details of LCG Extension” cited in IDS received August 9, 2023”) in view of Wallentin (US 20240172306 A1). Claim(s) 6 and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (“Stage-3 details of LCG Extension” cited in IDS received August 9, 2023”) in view of Wallentin (US 20240172306 A1) in view of ERICSSON (“Efficient SCG Activation” cited in IDS received August 9, 2023). In response to the prior art rejection(s) of said claim(s), Applicants have amended claim(s) in the following manner: independent claim(s) 1 and 7 have been amended to include at least the additional limitation, “identify/identifying whether a cell group is activated…”. Claim(s) 6 and 12 have been cancelled. Applicants have also presented arguments regarding amended claim(s) 1 and 7. In accordance with the amendments a new grounds rejection has been made in view of in view of MATTAM (US 20230397272 A1). Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Electronics (“Stage-3 details of LCG Extension” cited in IDS received August 9, 2023”) in view of MATTAM (US 20230397272 A1) in view of Wallentin (US 20240172306 A1).
In regards to claim 1, LG Electronics (“Stage-3 details of LCG Extension” cited in IDS received August 9, 2023”) teaches a method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
identifying, (See [Section 5.4.5 Buffer Status Reporting] “A BSR shall be triggered if any of the following events occur :UL data, for a logical channel which belongs to an LCG, becomes available to the MAC entity; and…);
identifying whether the UL data belongs to a first logical channel with higher priority than a priority of at least one logical channel containing available UL data which belongs to at least one LCG (See [Section 5.4.5] “…and this UL data belongs to a logical channel with higher priority than the priority of any logical channel containing available UL data which belong to any LCG…”), in case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity and
determining that a buffer state report (BSR) is triggered, in case that the UL data belongs to the first logical channel (See [Section 5.4.5] “…in which case the BSR is referred below to as 'Regular BSR'…”).
LG Electronics differs from claim 1, in that LG Electronics is silent on identifying whether a cell group is activated. LG further differs from claim 1, in that LG is silent on in a case that the cell group is activated, identifying, for the activated cell group whether the uplink (UL) data for the logical channel which belongs to a logical channel group (LCG) becomes available to a medium access control (MAC) entity associated with the activated cell group, identifying whether the UL data belongs to the first logical channel with higher priority than the priority of the at least one logical channel containing available UL data which belongs to at least one LCG, in a case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group.
Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving management of cell groups. MATTAM (US 20230397272 A1) teaches a feature for managing a cell group that comprises identifying whether a cell group is activated via a message that activates/reactivates the cell group (“[0036] In an embodiment, receiving, by the network node, the request to reactivate the de activated SCG from the UE comprises one of receiving, by the network node, at least one of a UE assistance information message, a new IE in an existing RRC message and a new RRC message from the UE to reactivate of the SCG by the network node, and receiving, by the network node, a MAC CE from the UE to reactivate the SCG by the network node, wherein the MAC CE includes a SCG Deactivation-Reactivation field indicating MAC CE is triggered for reactivation of the SCG by the network node and/or at least one reserved bit field… [0057] In an embodiment, sending the indication to the UE to reactivate the deactivated SCG by the UE comprises one of sending, by the network node, at least one of a new information element (IE) in an existing RRC message and a new RRC message to the UE to reactivate the SCG by the UE, and sending, by the network node, a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) to the UE to reactivate the SCG by the UE, wherein the MAC CE includes a SCG Deactivation-Reactivation field indicating MAC CE is triggered for reactivation of the SCG by the UE and/or at least one reserved bit field.”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of MATTAM it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cell group feature of LG by identifying whether a cell group is activated, as similarly seen in MATTAM, in order to provide a benefit of taking advantage of the benefits yielded by activated cell groups. One advantage being control the transmission power of a UE by activating a cell group.
The combined teachings of LG in view of MATTAM further differ from claim 1, in that the combined teachings are silent on with respect to an activated cell group, identifying, for the activated cell group whether the uplink (UL) data for the logical channel which belongs to a logical channel group (LCG) becomes available to a medium access control (MAC) entity associated with the activated cell group, identifying whether the UL data belongs to the first logical channel with higher priority than the priority of the at least one logical channel containing available UL data which belongs to at least one LCG, in a case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group.
Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving a BSR feature. Wallentin (US 20240172306 A1) teaches a BSR feature where a MAC entity is associated with an activated cell group. Wallentin also teaches, using the same configured/predefined for triggering a BSR, for both an activated cell group and a deactivated cell group (“[0222] When BSR is triggered at the SCG MAC entity (e.g., according to pre-defined and/or configured rules), the SCG MAC entity can transmit the BSR to the SN without necessarily activating the SCG. That can be done, for example, by the UE requesting UL data transmission in the deactivated SCG (e.g., in the PSCell) by sending an SR on PUCCH or by random access if the SCG MAC entity has no valid PUCCH resource configured for the SR. In one variant, regardless of whether the SCG is activated or deactivated, the SCG MAC entity uses the same rules to trigger BSR and the same procedure and configured parameters for SR and initial random access (if needed).”)
Thus, based upon the teachings of Wallentin it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LG in view of MATTAM BSR feature in a manner similar to that of the BSR feature of Wallentin, to arrive at the features for in a case that the cell group is activated, identifying, for the activated cell group whether the uplink (UL) data for the logical channel which belongs to a logical channel group (LCG) becomes available to a medium access control (MAC) entity associated with the activated cell group, identifying whether the UL data belongs to the first logical channel with higher priority than the priority of the at least one logical channel containing available UL data which belongs to at least one LCG, in a case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group, to consequently arrive at claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a benefit of an efficient BSR feature.
In regards to claim 7, LG Electronics (“Stage-3 details of LCG Extension” cited in IDS received August 9, 2023”) teaches a terminal in a wireless communication system, the terminal
identify, (See [Section 5.4.5 Buffer Status Reporting] “A BSR shall be triggered if any of the following events occur :UL data, for a logical channel which belongs to an LCG, becomes available to the MAC entity; and…);
identify whether the UL data belongs to a first logical channel with higher priority than a priority of at least one logical channel containing available UL data which belongs to at least one LCG,
in case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity (See [Section 5.4.5] “…and this UL data belongs to a logical channel with higher priority than the priority of any logical channel containing available UL data which belong to any LCG…”),
determine that a buffer state report (BSR) is triggered, in case that the UL data belongs to the first logical channel (See [Section 5.4.5] “…in which case the BSR is referred below to as 'Regular BSR'…”).
LG Electronics differs from claim 7, in that LG Electronics is silent on where the terminal of the processor is configured to: identify whether a cell group is activated. LG further differs from claim 7, in that LG is silent on where the processor is configured to in a case that the cell group is activated, identify, for the activated cell group whether the uplink (UL) data for the logical channel which belongs to a logical channel group (LCG) becomes available to a medium access control (MAC) entity associated with the activated cell group, identify whether the UL data belongs to the first logical channel with higher priority than the priority of the at least one logical channel containing available UL data which belongs to at least one LCG, in a case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group.
Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving management of cell groups. MATTAM (US 20230397272 A1) teaches a feature for managing a cell group that comprises identifying whether a cell group is activated via a message that activates/reactivates the cell group (“[0036] In an embodiment, receiving, by the network node, the request to reactivate the de activated SCG from the UE comprises one of receiving, by the network node, at least one of a UE assistance information message, a new IE in an existing RRC message and a new RRC message from the UE to reactivate of the SCG by the network node, and receiving, by the network node, a MAC CE from the UE to reactivate the SCG by the network node, wherein the MAC CE includes a SCG Deactivation-Reactivation field indicating MAC CE is triggered for reactivation of the SCG by the network node and/or at least one reserved bit field… [0057] In an embodiment, sending the indication to the UE to reactivate the deactivated SCG by the UE comprises one of sending, by the network node, at least one of a new information element (IE) in an existing RRC message and a new RRC message to the UE to reactivate the SCG by the UE, and sending, by the network node, a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) to the UE to reactivate the SCG by the UE, wherein the MAC CE includes a SCG Deactivation-Reactivation field indicating MAC CE is triggered for reactivation of the SCG by the UE and/or at least one reserved bit field.”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of MATTAM it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cell group feature of LG to identify whether a cell group is activated, as similarly seen in MATTAM, in order to provide a benefit of taking advantage of the benefits yielded by activated cell groups. One advantage being control the transmission power of a UE by activating a cell group.
The combined teachings of LG in view of MATTAM further differ from claim , in that the combined teachings are silent on where the processor of the terminal is configured to, with respect to an activated cell group: identify, for the activated cell group whether the uplink (UL) data for the logical channel which belongs to a logical channel group (LCG) becomes available to a medium access control (MAC) entity associated with the activated cell group, identify whether the UL data belongs to the first logical channel with higher priority than the priority of the at least one logical channel containing available UL data which belongs to at least one LCG, in a case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group.
Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving a BSR feature. Wallentin (US 20240172306 A1) teaches a BSR feature where a MAC entity is associated with an activated cell group. Wallentin also teaches, using the same configured/predefined for triggering a BSR, for both an activated cell group and a deactivated cell group (“[0222] When BSR is triggered at the SCG MAC entity (e.g., according to pre-defined and/or configured rules), the SCG MAC entity can transmit the BSR to the SN without necessarily activating the SCG. That can be done, for example, by the UE requesting UL data transmission in the deactivated SCG (e.g., in the PSCell) by sending an SR on PUCCH or by random access if the SCG MAC entity has no valid PUCCH resource configured for the SR. In one variant, regardless of whether the SCG is activated or deactivated, the SCG MAC entity uses the same rules to trigger BSR and the same procedure and configured parameters for SR and initial random access (if needed).”)
Thus, based upon the teachings of Wallentin it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LG in view of MATTAM BSR feature in a manner similar to that of the BSR feature of Wallentin, to arrive at the features to in a case that the cell group is activated, identify, for the activated cell group whether the uplink (UL) data for the logical channel which belongs to a logical channel group (LCG) becomes available to a medium access control (MAC) entity associated with the activated cell group, identify whether the UL data belongs to the first logical channel with higher priority than the priority of the at least one logical channel containing available UL data which belongs to at least one LCG, in a case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group, to consequently arrive at claim 7. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a benefit of an efficient BSR feature.
In regards to claim 2, LG Electronics teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying that the at least one logical channel which belongs to the at least one LCG does not contain available UL data, in case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity ([Section 5.4.5] teaches “A BSR shall be triggered if any of the following events occur:
UL data, for a logical channel which belongs to an LCG, becomes available to the MAC entity; and either….this UL data belongs to a logical channel with higher priority than the priority of any logical channel containing available UL data which belong to any LCG; or none of the logical channels which belong to an LCG contains any available UL data…in which case the BSR is referred below to as 'Regular BSR'; ”). The Buffer Status Reporting (BSR) feature of LG Electronics differs from claim 2, in that LG Electronics is silent on the medium access control (MAC) entity being associated with an activated cell group. Despite these differences the combination of LG Electronics and Wallentin is believed to arrive at the’ MAC entity associated with an the activated cell group of claim 2, for substantially the same rationale provided to arrive at the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group of claim 1.
In regards to claim 8, LG Electronics teaches the terminal of claim 7, wherein identify that the at least one logical channel which belongs to the at least one LCG does not contain available UL data, in case that the UL data becomes available to the MAC entity (See [Section 5.4.5] “A BSR shall be triggered if any of the following events occur:
UL data, for a logical channel which belongs to an LCG, becomes available to the MAC entity; and either….this UL data belongs to a logical channel with higher priority than the priority of any logical channel containing available UL data which belong to any LCG; or none of the logical channels which belong to an LCG contains any available UL data…in which case the BSR is referred below to as 'Regular BSR'; ”).
The Buffer Status Reporting (BSR) feature of LG Electronics differs from claim 8, in that LG Electronics is silent on the medium access control (MAC) entity being associated with an activated cell group. LG Electronics further differs from claim 8, in that LG Electronics is silent on the terminal comprising: at least one processor configured to perform the features of claim 8. Despite these differences the combination of LG Electronics and Wallentin is believed to arrive at the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group of claim 8, and the processor of claim 8 for substantially the same rationale provided to arrive at the MAC entity associated with the activated cell group of claim 7, and the processor of claim 7.
In regards to claim(s) 5 and 11, LG Electronics teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the triggered BSR is a regular BSR (See [Section 5.4.5] “…in which case the BSR is referred below to as 'Regular BSR'…”).
In regards to claim 3, LG Electronics teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying that a retransmission BSR timer is expired; identifying that the at least one logical channel which belongs to the at least one LCG contains the available UL data; and determining that the BSR is triggered, in case that the retransmission BSR timer is expired and the at least one logical channel which belongs to the at least one LCG contains the available UL data (See [Section 5.4.5] “For BSR triggered by retxBSR-Timer expiry, the MAC entity considers that the logical channel that triggered the BSR is the highest priority logical channel that has data available for transmission at the time the BSR is triggered. The MAC entity shall:”).
In regards to claim 9, LG Electronics teaches the terminal of claim 7, identify that a retransmission BSR timer is expired, identify that the at least one logical channel which belongs to the at least one LCG contains the available UL data, and determine that the BSR is triggered, in case that the retransmission BSR timer is expired and the at least one logical channel which belongs to the at least one LCG contains the available UL data (See [Section 5.4.5] “For BSR triggered by retxBSR-Timer expiry, the MAC entity considers that the logical channel that triggered the BSR is the highest priority logical channel that has data available for transmission at the time the BSR is triggered. The MAC entity shall:”).
The Buffer Status Reporting (BSR) feature of LG Electronics differs from claim 9, in that LG in that LG Electronics is silent on the terminal comprising: at least one processor configured to perform the features of claim 9. Despite these differences the combination of LG Electronics and Wallentin is believed to arrive at the processor of claim 9 for substantially the same rationale provided to arrive at the processor of claim 7.
In regards to claim(s) 4 and 10, LG Electronics teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the retransmission BSR timer is configured based on a radio resource control (RRC) message (See [Section 5.4.5] “ “RRC configures the following parameters to control the BSR:- periodicBSR-Timer;- retxBSR-Timer;”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARELL A HAMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7162. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 5712723795. 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.
/TARELL A HAMPTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476