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 filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in pages 12-15, the applicant asserts that “Therefore, for at least these reasons, independent claim 29 is allowable, including but not limited to over Kim. Independent claims 1, 24, and 30 recite similar features to those recited in independent claim 29 and are therefore allowable for at least similar reasons.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
The applicant further asserts that in page 13 that “Kim does not disclose or suggest "receiving first control information indicative of a correspondence between one or more operations at the UE and at least one or more candidate values of a scheduling request," as recited in independent claim 29 at least because Kim has not been shown describe 1) "one or more candidate values of a scheduling request," 2) "one or more operations at the UE," and 3) any correspondence between "one or more operations at the UE," and "one or more candidate values of a scheduling request," as claimed. Instead, the multiple SR configuration merely provides information related to time/frequency resources for communication of each SR type.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
As indicated by KIM, in par. 319, the UE receive the information elements for configuring multiple SR types and the information elements for configuring the multiple SR types for each SR type indicated by table 8 and par. 323, including the size of data. As further indicated by par. 328, 330, 331, 333, 340, the value (CS, OC, PRB, periodicity, offset, the size of data) for sending scheduling request and the corresponding to SR type 1, 2, or 3 and the UL resource assignment procedure or operation for the corresponding SR type 1, 2, or 3 as indicated by par. 348-362 and as further indicated by par. 365-374. As further indicated Fig. 18 and par. 350, 355, the eNB performing 3-step UL resource assignment procedure and 5-step UL resource assignment procedure, which the UE performing corresponding 3-step UL resource assignment procedure and 5-step UL resource assignment procedure to the eNB based on the SR type 2 and SR type 1.
Therefore, KIM teaches one or more candidate values of a scheduling request (the value (CS, OC, periodicity, offset, the size of data)) and one or more operations at the UE and correspondence between one or more operations at the UE and one or more candidate values of a scheduling request.
The applicant further assert in pages 13, 14 that “Kim also fails to disclose or suggest "transmitting the scheduling request in accordance with the first control information, a value of the scheduling request indicative, at least in part, of a UE operation of the one or more operations," as recited in independent claim 29, at least because 1) Kim is not relevant to, nor mentions anything related to, "a value of the scheduling request," as claimed, and 2) Kim does not show how "a value of the scheduling request [is] indicative, at least in part, of a UE operation," as claimed. Instead, Kim merely describes that the UE transmits a scheduling request in a resource configured by the multiple SR configuration, such that the network entity can determine the type of scheduling request based on the resource, which says nothing about, and therefore fails to disclose or suggest, "a value of the scheduling request [being] indicative, at least in part, of a UE operation of the one or more operations," as recited in independent claim 29.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
As indicated by par. 328, 330, 331, 333, 340 of KIM, the UE sends the SR using the CS, OC, PRB, periodicity, offset, the size of data to indicate SR type 1, 2, or 3 and SR type 1, 2, or 3 as indicated from the above indicating the being dependence on the information elements or control information, the value (CS, OC, PRB, periodicity, offset, the size of data) and the corresponding to SR type 1, 2, or 3 and the UL resource assignment procedure or operation for the corresponding SR type 1, 2, or 3. Therefore, the transmitting of the SR is in accordance with “the first control information, a value of the scheduling request indicative, at least in part, of a UE operation of the one or more operations.”
Therefore, KIM teaches the claims.
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 23, 24-26, 28-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM et al. (US 20200296754).
Regarding claims 1, 29, 36, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, UE), comprising:
One or more memories (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, UE);
One or more processors processor coupled with the one or more memories and configured to cause the UE (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, UE) to:
receive first control information indicative of a correspondence between one or more operations at the UE and at least one or more candidate values of a scheduling request (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, UE may receive information elements for configuring multiple SR types from an eNB through an RRC message…the multiple SR configuration information may also include information about the size of UL data according to each SR type);
transmit the scheduling request in accordance with the first control information, a value of the scheduling request indicative, at least in part, of a UE operation of the one or more operations (fig. 23, par. 17, 338-342, 348, 349, when the UE sends the SR through an SR resource corresponding to the SR type 1, the eNB may determine the received SR to be the SR type 1. Likewise, when the UE sends the SR through an SR resource corresponding to the SR type 2, the eNB may determine the received SR to be the SR type 2); and
perform the UE operation in accordance with the value of the scheduling request (par. 348-350, 353, 354, 355, if the UE sends the SR type 1 to the eNB, the eNB may perform a common 5-step UL resource assignment procedure by detecting energy (i.e., detecting on/off) in the resource of the SR type 1; par. 355-362, SR type 2, SR type 3).
Regarding claims 2, 31, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform the UE operation, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: transmit one of a buffer status report, a delay status report, an energy status report, or combinations thereof in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence (par. 18, 19, SR for sending the BSR, delay attributable to the assignment of UL resources can be reduced by newly defining multiple SR types; table 15, par. 218, 223).
Regarding claims 3, 32, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive, as part of the first control information, an indication of different reports or different report formats as the one or more operations at the UE, the one or more candidate values of the scheduling request each associated with a respective report or report format in accordance with the correspondence (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, UE may receive information elements for configuring multiple SR types from an eNB through an RRC message…the multiple SR configuration information may also include information about the size of UL data according to each SR type).
Regarding claim 4, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the different report formats include one or more of a first buffer status report which includes a first table, a second buffer status report which includes a second table different from the first table, or a third buffer status report which includes a two-part table (par. 218, 244, the UE may report the buffer state of its own to the network by configuring one of the index value among truncated BSR, short BSR, and long BSR in the LCID field; tables 17, 18, par. 304, 308, 315).
Regarding claims 5, 33, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive, as part of the first control information, an indication of different start indices of a report of the UE as the one or more operations at the UE, the one or more candidate values of the scheduling request each associated with a respective start index in accordance with the correspondence (par. 218, 244; fig. 22, tables 17, 18, par. 304, 308, 315-319, 323, different SR types associated with different resources as indicated by configuration information, different resources have different start indexes).
Regarding claim 9, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform the UE operation, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: switch between a first communications state to a second communications state in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence (par. 305, 306, 347, 348, 355, the multiple SR configuration may be dynamically or semi-statically changed…when the UE sends the SR through an SR resource corresponding to the SR type 1, the eNB may determine the received SR to be the SR type 1. Likewise, when the UE sends the SR through an SR resource corresponding to the SR type 2, the eNB may determine the received SR to be the SR type 2).
Regarding claim 10, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform the UE operation, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: transmit, via layer 1 resources or layer 2 resources, a MAC-CE that requests to operate in a first search space set group, to skip one or more physical downlink control channel resources, or to operate in a first communications state (par. 244, 292, 313, The BSR is transmitted using a MAC control element… transmits the information of the UL data size to an eNB using the BSR of 6 bits; par. 302, communicating using different size of data or communication state), the request of the MAC-CE being in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence (fig. 25, par. 244, 292, 302, 313, BSR in MAC control element in length within the multiple SR configuration).
Regarding claim 11, KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive control signaling that indicates the layer 1 resources or the layer 2 resources for transmission of the MAC-CE (fig. 13, 208, 218, 221, 241, 244, 272, the data transmission and reception method based on scheduling of an eNB is used… The BSR is transmitted using a MAC control element in case that the resources on the PUSCH in current TTI are allocated to the UE and the reporting event is triggered).
Regarding claim 12, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: transmit a buffer status report that includes a second value, the correspondence to be further between the UE operation and a combination of the value of the scheduling request and the second value of the buffer status report (par. 405, 407, 408, 409, 410, SR type and BSR of 6 bits) and performance of the UE operation to be further in accordance with the combination of the value of the scheduling request and the second value of the buffer status report (par. 408, 409, 410, 412, the eNB checks the size of the UL data to be actually transmitted by the UE in uplink through the received SR type (or BSR) and sends the UL grant for the PUSCH resource for sending the actual data to the UE. Furthermore, the eNB sets up a soft buffer size corresponding to the size of the UL data to be transmitted by the UE in uplink based on the received SR type (or BSR)).
Regarding claim 21, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, the value of the scheduling request to comprise at least two bits of information (par. 302, 402, SR types being 3 or more would require at least 2 bits; par. 345, 377, 378, 380).
Regarding claim 23, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, one of the one or more candidate values of the scheduling request included in the correspondence being zero (par. 312, 407, if the SR type transmitted by the UE does not indicate a procedure for assigning uplink resources through the transmission of an existing BSR of 6 bits).
Regarding claims 24, 30, 37, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, eNB), comprising:
One or more memories (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, eNB); and
One or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and configured to cause the network entity (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, eNB) to:
output first control information indicative of a correspondence between one or more operations at a user equipment (UE) and at least one or more candidate values of a scheduling request (par. 17, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 319, 323, UE may receive information elements for configuring multiple SR types from an eNB through an RRC message…the multiple SR configuration information may also include information about the size of UL data according to each SR type);
obtain the scheduling request in accordance with the first control information, a value of the scheduling request indicative, at least in part, of a UE operation of the one or more operations (fig. 23, par. 17, 338-342, 348, 349, when the UE sends the SR through an SR resource corresponding to the SR type 1, the eNB may determine the received SR to be the SR type 1. Likewise, when the UE sends the SR through an SR resource corresponding to the SR type 2, the eNB may determine the received SR to be the SR type 2); and
perform a network operation corresponding to the UE operation that is in accordance with the value of the scheduling request (par. 348-350, 353, 354, 355, if the UE sends the SR type 1 to the eNB, the eNB may perform a common 5-step UL resource assignment procedure by detecting energy (i.e., detecting on/off) in the resource of the SR type 1; par. 355-362, SR type 2, SR type 3).
Regarding claims 25, 34, KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 24, wherein, to perform the network operation, the one or more processor are configured to cause the network entity to: obtain one of a buffer status report, a delay status report, an energy status report, or combinations thereof in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence (par. 18, 19, SR for sending the BSR, delay attributable to the assignment of UL resources can be reduced by newly defining multiple SR types; table 15, par. 218, 223).
Regarding claims 26, 35, KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the one or more processor are further configured to cause the network entity to: obtain a buffer status report that includes a second value, the correspondence to be further between the UE operation and a combination of the value of the scheduling request and the second value of the buffer status report (par. 405, 407, 408, 409, 410, SR type and BSR of 6 bits) and performance of the network operation that corresponds to the UE operation to be further in accordance with the combination of the value of the scheduling request and the second value of the buffer status report (par. 408, 409, 410, 412, the eNB checks the size of the UL data to be actually transmitted by the UE in uplink through the received SR type (or BSR) and sends the UL grant for the PUSCH resource for sending the actual data to the UE. Furthermore, the eNB sets up a soft buffer size corresponding to the size of the UL data to be transmitted by the UE in uplink based on the received SR type (or BSR)).
Regarding claim 28, KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 24, one of the one or more candidate values of the scheduling request included in the correspondence being zero (par. 312, 407, if the SR type transmitted by the UE does not indicate a procedure for assigning uplink resources through the transmission of an existing BSR of 6 bits).
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.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20200296754) in view of MOLAVIANJAZI et al. (US 20240306098 as supported by provisional app. 63451402 filed on 03/10/2023).
Regarding claim 6, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform the UE operation, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: the MAC-CE also indicative of a buffer status report or report separate from the buffer status report (par. 225, 244, The BSR is transmitted using a MAC control element).
However, KIM does not teach transmit a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) indicative of an energy status report in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence.
But, MOLAVIANJAZI in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches
transmit a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) indicative of an energy status report in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence (par. 82, 83, L2 mechanisms to report the ESR: In one embodiment, a UE can report the ESR using a MAC CE ;par. 459, when the UE 116 determines a trigger for ESR and the UE 116 does not have UL resources that are required for providing an ESR, the UE 116 triggers a scheduling request (SR)), the MAC-CE also indicative of a buffer status report or report separate from the buffer status report (par. 124, 189, Uplink buffer status reports are transmitted using MAC signalling).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by MOLAVIANJAZI in the system of KIM to transmit ESR.
The motivation would have been to manage optimize energy usage and prevent wasting system resource and not create unnecessary signaling overhead (par. 73 of MOLAVIANJAZI).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20200296754) in view of NAM et al. (US 20250212215).
Regarding claim 7, KIM does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform the UE operation, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: cancel a physical downlink control channel skip procedure in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence.
But, NAM et al. (US 20250212215) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches cancel a physical downlink control channel skip procedure in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence (par. 223-224, The UE selects the cell for which the PDCCH skipping is ignored based on the scheduling cell configuration as follows… The UE selects the cell if the cell is the scheduling cell of a cell mapped to the logical channel that triggers the SR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by NAM in the system of KIM to skip monitoring the PDCCH.
The motivation would have been to avoid unnecessary scheduling delay.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20200296754) in view of LAI et al. (US 20220330215).
Regarding claim 8, KIM does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to perform the UE operation, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: switch between operations in a first search space set group to operations in a second search space set group in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence.
But, LAI et al. (US 20220330215) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein, to perform the UE operation, the processor is further configured to: switch between operations in a first search space set group to operations in a second search space set group in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence (par. 154, 155, when the one or more DCI fields relating to SSSG switching indicating a search space set group including at least one configured SS set (group), the UE may monitor the configured SS set (group)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by LAI in the system of KIM to switch search space.
The motivation would have been to enhancements on power saving techniques for a connected-mode UE is needed so as to minimize system performance impact.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 15, 18-20, 22, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20200296754) in view of TSAI et al. (US 20250212045 with supported provisional app. 63457181 filed on 04/05/2023).
Regarding claim 13, KIM does not teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: transmit one of a delay status report, an energy status report, an indication of a search space set group switch, or of a physical downlink control channel skip procedure update, in combination with the buffer status report in accordance with the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence.
But, TSAI in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches transmit one of a delay status report, an energy status report, an indication of a search space set group switch, or of a physical downlink control channel skip procedure update, in combination with the buffer status report in accordance with the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence (par. 478, 516, 517, The UE may trigger the delay report in response to triggering the BSR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by TSAI in the system of KIM to report delay report.
The motivation would have been to provide quality of service in term of delay.
Regarding claim 14, KIM does not teach the apparatus of claim 13, the delay status report indicative of one of a plurality of values associated with the delay status report based at least in part on the combination of the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence.
But, TSAI in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches the delay status report indicative of one of a plurality of values associated with the delay status report based at least in part on the combination of the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence (par. 443, 447, 478, 479, 516, 517, The UE may trigger the delay report in response to triggering the BSR; par. 225, when a BSR is triggered (e.g., when new data arrives in the transmission buffers of the UE), a Scheduling Request (SR) may be transmitted by the UE (e.g.,when no resources are available to transmit the BSR)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by TSAI in the system of KIM to report delay report.
The motivation would have been to provide quality of service in term of delay.
Regarding claim 15, KIM does not teach the apparatus of claim 13, the delay status report indicative that a remaining packet delay budget, a wait time of an uplink message of the UE, or both satisfy one or more delay thresholds based at least in part on the combination of the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence.
But, TSAI in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches the delay status report indicative that a remaining packet delay budget, a wait time of an uplink message of the UE, or both satisfy one or more delay thresholds based at least in part on the combination of the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence (par. 443, 447, 465-467, 478, 479, 516, 517,the delay information/remaining time may be a difference between a delay budget and a buffered time of the one or more data… if the criteria of the two thresholds are satisfied, the UE may trigger the delay report (procedure)…The UE may trigger the delay report in response to triggering the BSR; par. 225, when a BSR is triggered (e.g., when new data arrives in the transmission buffers of the UE), a Scheduling Request (SR) may be transmitted by the UE (e.g.,when no resources are available to transmit the BSR); par. 316).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by TSAI in the system of KIM to report delay report.
The motivation would have been to provide quality of service in term of delay.
Regarding claim 18, KIM does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
receive, as part of the first control information, an indication that the scheduling request is associated with a reduced quantity of logical channel groups, the value of the scheduling request indicative that a buffer status report is to include information associated with the reduced quantity of logical channel groups; and
transmit the buffer status report that includes the information associated with the reduced quantity of logical channel groups in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence, a header of the buffer status report indicative of one or more unused portions of the buffer status report.
But, TSAI in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches receive, as part of the first control information, an indication that the scheduling request is associated with a reduced quantity of logical channel groups (par. 220, 536, uplink buffer status reports refer to the data that is buffered in for a group of logical channels (LCG) in the UE), the value of the scheduling request indicative that a buffer status report is to include information associated with the reduced quantity of logical channel groups (par. 225, 305, 306, The fields in the BSR MAC CE may be defined as follows… LCG ID: The Logical Channel Group ID field identifies the group of logical channel(s) whose buffer status is being reported. The length of the field is 3 bits for the case of Short BSR and Short Truncated BSR formats, and 8 bits for the case of Extended Short BSR and Extended Short Truncated BSR formats); and
transmit the buffer status report that includes the information associated with the reduced quantity of logical channel groups in accordance with the value of the scheduling request and the correspondence (par. 220-224, 305, 306, The fields in the BSR MAC CE may be defined as follows… LCG ID: The Logical Channel Group ID field identifies the group of logical channel(s) whose buffer status is being reported. The length of the field is 3 bits for the case of Short BSR and Short Truncated BSR formats, and 8 bits for the case of Extended Short BSR and Extended Short Truncated BSR formats), a header of the buffer status report indicative of one or more unused portions of the buffer status report (par. 256-258, 305, 306, The length of the field is 3 bits for the case of Short BSR and Short Truncated BSR formats, and 8 bits for the case of Extended Short BSR and Extended Short Truncated BSR formats).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by TSAI in the system of KIM to report delay report.
The motivation would have been to provide quality of service in term of delay.
Regarding claim 19, TSAI teaches the apparatus of claim 18, the one or more unused portions of the buffer status report to include the information associated with the reduced quantity of logical channel groups, the information to include an energy status report associated with each of the reduced quantity of logical channel groups, a delay status report associated with each of the reduced quantity of logical channel groups, the buffer status report associated with each of the reduced quantity of logical channel groups, or a combination thereof (par. 220-224, 305, 306, uplink buffer status reports refer to the data that is buffered in for a group of logical channels (LCG) in the UE. Four formats, may be used for reporting in uplink: A short format to report only one BSR (of one Logical Channel Group (LCG))). TSAI et al. (US 20250212045 with supported provisional app. 63457181 filed on 04/05/2023) teaches
Regarding claim 20, TSAI teaches the apparatus of claim 18, a first unused portion of the one or more unused portions of the buffer status report to include a codeword indicative of at least a type of the information included in the one or more unused portions of the buffer status report, a format of the information included in the one or more unused portions of the buffer status report, a table associated with the information included in the one or more unused portions of the buffer status report, or a combination thereof (par. 220-224, 305, 306, The length of the field is 3 bits for the case of Short BSR and Short Truncated BSR formats, and 8 bits for the case of Extended Short BSR and Extended Short Truncated BSR formats ).
Regarding claim 22, KIM et al. (US 20200296754) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, the UE operation to be at least a transmission of one of a buffer status report, a delay status report, or an energy status report (par. 18, 19, SR for sending the BSR, delay attributable to the assignment of UL resources can be reduced by newly defining multiple SR types; table 15, par. 218, 223).
However, KIM does not teach the value of the scheduling request to be based at least in part on a respective priority associated with each of the buffer status report, the delay status report, and the energy status report.
But, TSAI in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches the UE operation to be at least a transmission of one of a buffer status report, a delay status report, or an energy status report, and the value of the scheduling request to be based at least in part on a respective priority associated with each of the buffer status report, the delay status report, and the energy status report (par. 77, 230, 260, 458, 463, 470, report Short Truncated BSR of the LCG with the highest priority logical channel with data available for transmission…the UL-SCH resources can accommodate the delay report/DIR/DSR (MAC CE) plus its subheader as a result of logical channel prioritization,).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by TSAI in the system of KIM to report delay report.
The motivation would have been to provide quality of service in term of delay.
Regarding claim 27, KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 24, the network operation to be at least a reception of one of a buffer status report, a delay status report, or an energy status report (par. 18, 19, SR for sending the BSR, delay attributable to the assignment of UL resources can be reduced by newly defining multiple SR types; table 15, par. 218, 223),
However, KIM does not teach the value of the scheduling request to be based at least in part on a respective priority associated with each of the buffer status report, the delay status report, and the energy status report.
But, TSAI in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches the network operation to be at least a reception of one of a buffer status report, a delay status report, or an energy status report, and the value of the scheduling request to be based at least in part on a respective priority associated with each of the buffer status report, the delay status report, and the energy status report (par. 77, 230, 260, 458, 463, 470, report Short Truncated BSR of the LCG with the highest priority logical channel with data available for transmission…the UL-SCH resources can accommodate the delay report/DIR/DSR (MAC CE) plus its subheader as a result of logical channel prioritization,).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by TSAI in the system of KIM to report delay report.
The motivation would have been to provide quality of service in term of delay.
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IM et al. (US 20200296754) and TSAI et al. (US 20250212045 with supported provisional app. 63457181 filed on 04/05/2023) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of MOLAVIANJAZI et al. (US 20240306098 as supported by provisional app. 63451402 filed on 03/10/2023).
Regarding claim 16, KIM does not teach the apparatus of claim 13, the energy status report indicative of one of a plurality of values associated with the energy status report based at least in part on the combination of the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence.
But, MOLAVIANJAZI et al. (US 20240306098) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches the energy status report indicative of one of a plurality of values associated with the energy status report based at least in part on the combination of the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence (par. 459, when the UE 116 determines a trigger for ESR and the UE 116 does not have UL resources that are required for providing an ESR, the UE 116 triggers a scheduling request (SR)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by MOLAVIANJAZI in the system of KIM and TSAI to transmit ESR.
The motivation would have been to manage optimize energy usage and prevent wasting system resource and not create unnecessary signaling overhead (par. 73 of MOLAVIANJAZI).
Regarding claim 17, KIM does not teach the apparatus of claim 13, the energy status report indicative of one of a charging rate of the UE, a charging request of the UE, or a combination thereof based at least in part on the combination of the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence.
But, MOLAVIANJAZI et al. (US 20240306098) in a similar or same filed of endeavor teaches the energy status report indicative of one of a charging rate of the UE, a charging request of the UE, or a combination thereof based at least in part on the combination of the value of the scheduling request, the second value of the buffer status report, and the correspondence (par. 326, 348, ESR can be based on or can include information about energy harvesting efficiency, such as charging amount per time unit or charging unit per data volume or per message).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by MOLAVIANJAZI in the system of KIM and TSAI to transmit ESR.
The motivation would have been to manage optimize energy usage and prevent wasting system resource and not create unnecessary signaling overhead (par. 73 of MOLAVIANJAZI).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THINH D TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3934. The examiner can normally be reached mon-fri 9-6.
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, FARUK HAMZA can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/THINH D TRAN/for /Thinh Tran/, Patent Examiner of Art Unit 2466 05/23/2026
Prosecution Insights