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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5,7,11-16,18 and 20 have been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1,11 and 20 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to objections for the disclosure have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to nonstatutory double patenting rejection have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 01/21/2026 on page 11
of applicant's remark regarding Independent Claims, the applicant argues that Chen does not disclose the claimed invention which enables systematic determination of buffer size values and there is no motivation to combine references.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Chen discloses XR service based Buffer size tables with minimum (index 0) and maximum size (index 31) of the table with index associated with each of the sizes. The BSR table is referred by the UE to determine buffer size index (i.e. systematic determination) and send to the network using the index representing the buffer size (Chen Fig.5,21 (64-66,123-127]. Chen provides buffer size index to network for requesting uplink resources, Tesanovic supports receiving UL grant and resources and Wang_7478 provides supporting information for minimum and maximum buffer size values which yields the motivation to combine Chen, Tesanovic and Wang_7478 with a rationale to provide a capability to the terminal for effectively selecting an index appropriate to size of the data in a buffer and doing so ensures high reliability for receiving needed resources for increased uplink throughput. “It is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable... . [T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims—American Perspectives, 21 Int’! Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The applicant here also fails to provide specific information in the amended limitation of the independent claims on creation of tables and how buffer size range is different than Chen’s teachings. It is also not clear what it means by buffer size range and how the claimed tables are different than Chen’s. Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the combined teachings of Chen, Tesanovic and Wang_7478. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 2-10 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
Claims 12-19 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4,7,11-15,18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2024/004803 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Chen”) in view of TESANOVIC et al. (US 2021/0345383 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Tesanovic”) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0247478 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wang-7478”).
Regarding claims 1,11 and 20, Chen discloses a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (Chen Fig.1 Para[0050] A UE) and a base station (Chen Fig.1 Para[0050] A base station), comprising: obtaining an XR-specific buffer status report (BSR) table (Chen Fig.21 Para[0124-127] A XR service based BSR table (i.e. XR-specific BSR table) is indicated in the BSR), wherein buffer size values of the XR-specific BSR table are determined based on the lower bound value and the higher bound value (Chen Fig.21 Para[0124-127] A XR service based BSR table (i.e. XR-specific BSR table) has a range for each index with lower and higher values); reporting, to the base station (Chen Fig.1 Para[0050] A Base station) under a trigger condition (Chen Para[0072] A BSR trigger), a buffer status report (BSR) to indicate a buffer size for data to be transmitted to the base station (Chen Fig.5 Para[0064-66] A Buffer size indication. A Buffer size indication from the UE for the base station), wherein the BSR includes a BSR index indicating a corresponding buffer size range in the XR-specific BSR table (Chen Fig.5 Para[0064-66] An index (i.e. information) for a table for mapping the size of the buffer).
Chen does not explicitly disclose establishing a connection supporting an extended reality (XR) application service with a base station; receiving an uplink (UL) grant from the base station; and configuring UL resources on the UE based on the UL grant.
However, Tesanovic from the same field of invention discloses establishing a connection supporting an extended reality (XR) application service with a base station (Tesanovic Fig.2 Para[0138] A communication between the UE and the base station); receiving an uplink (UL) grant from the base station; and configuring UL resources on the UE based on the UL grant (Tesanovic Fig.2 Para[0138] The base station sends UL grant in response to receiving the BSR and the UE sends uplink data using the assigned resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen to have the feature of “establishing a connection supporting an extended reality (XR) application service with a base station; receiving an uplink (UL) grant from the base station; and configuring UL resources on the UE based on the UL grant” as taught by Tesanovic. The motivation would have been for efficient buffer state reporting (Tesanovic Para[0096]).
Chen in view of Tesanovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the XR-specific BSR table comprises a lower bound value and a higher bound value.
However, Wang-7478 from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the XR-specific BSR table comprises a lower bound value and a higher bound value (Wang-7478 Para[0146] The granularity of BSR table range is step size with minimum and maximum values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen and Tesanovic to have the feature of “wherein the XR-specific BSR table comprises a lower bound value and a higher bound value” as taught by Wang-7478. The motivation would have been for selecting a BSR table from the multiple tables (Wang-7478 Para[0069]).
Specifically for claim 20, Chen discloses an apparatus that includes a processor (Chen Fig.2 Para[0055] A processor) and a memory (Chen Fig.2 Para[0055] A memory).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen further discloses wherein the buffer size values of the XR-specific BSR table are in a linear distribution (Chen Fig.5,21 Para[0064-66,0124-127] A XR service based BSR table (i.e. XR-specific BSR tables) with linear increase of buffer size).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen further discloses wherein the XR-specific BSR table is configured with an equal step size value between consecutive buffer size values (Chen Fig.21 Para[0064-66,0124-127] A XR service based BSR table with equal step size of buffer size).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen further discloses wherein the XR-specific BSR table is configured with a step size value, and wherein a buffer size value for an index k is determined as B + (k - 1) x (step size) (Chen Fig.21 Para[0064-66,0124-127] A XR service based BSR table with buffer size increase with a fixed step size dependent on the current and previous index difference).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Wang-7478 further discloses wherein the BSR includes a table index selecting a BSR table from a plurality of BSR tables comprising the XR-specific BSR table and a BSR index indicating a corresponding buffer size range in the selected BSR table (Wang-7478 Para[0143,0151] The UE sends BSR with indication of BSR table).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen and Tesanovic to have the feature of “wherein the XR-specific BSR table comprises a lower bound value and a higher bound value” as taught by Wang-7478. The motivation would have been for selecting a BSR table from the multiple tables (Wang-7478 Para[0069]).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen further discloses wherein the XR-specific BSR table is a hard coded table with a plurality of pre-defined buffer size ranges (Chen Fig.21 Para[0124-127] A XR service based BSR table stored at the UE (i.e. hard coded) and have size range).
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Tesanovic, Wang-7478 and further in view of DENG et al. (US 2025/0211370 All, hereinafter referred to as “Deng”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 does not explicitly disclose wherein a delta BSR table is used in addition to the XR-specific BSR table, and wherein the BSR further includes a BSR index indicating a corresponding buffer size range in a legacy BSR table and a delta index indicating a corresponding delta value in the delta BSR table.
However, Deng from a similar field of invention discloses wherein a delta BSR table is used in addition to the XR-specific BSR table, and wherein the BSR further includes a BSR index indicating a corresponding buffer size range in a legacy BSR table and a delta index indicating a corresponding delta value in the delta BSR table (Deng Fig.13 Para[0100-103] The BSR report is sent using range and enhanced BSR indication for sub-range (i.e. delta)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen, Tesanovic and Wang-7478 to have the feature of “wherein a delta BSR table is used in addition to the XR-specific BSR table, and wherein the BSR further includes a BSR index indicating a corresponding buffer size range in a legacy BSR table and a delta index indicating a corresponding delta value in the delta BSR table” as taught by Deng. The motivation would have been for enhancing service traffic for extended reality (Deng Para[0013]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 does not explicitly disclose wherein the corresponding delta value is an increment delta BSR value or a decrement delta BSR value.
However, Deng from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the corresponding delta value is an increment delta BSR value or a decrement delta BSR value (Deng Fig.13 Para[0100-103] The sub-range (i.e. delta) is for indicating lower or higher bytes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen, Tesanovic and Wang-7478 to have the feature of “wherein the corresponding delta value is an increment delta BSR value or a decrement delta BSR value” as taught by Deng. The motivation would have been for enhancing service traffic for extended reality (Deng Para[0013]).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Tesanovic, Wang-7478 and further in view of WANG (US 2024/0259871 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 does not explicitly disclose wherein the trigger condition is every transport block (TB).
However, Wang from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the trigger condition is every transport block (TB) (Wang Para[0084-85] The transport block (i.e. TB) is received causing (i.e. trigger) the terminal to send BSR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen, Tesanovic and Wang-7478 to have the feature of “wherein the trigger condition is every transport block (TB)” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been for improving communication performance of latency critical services (Wang Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 does not explicitly disclose wherein the BSR includes timing information, and the timing information is relative timing information or absolute timing information.
However, Wang from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the BSR includes timing information, and the timing information is relative timing information or absolute timing information (Wang Para[0042] The BSR includes delay budget (i.e. timing information) which can be relative or absolute timing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen, Tesanovic and Wang-7478 to have the feature of “wherein the BSR includes timing information, and the timing information is relative timing information or absolute timing information” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been for improving communication performance of latency critical services (Wang Para[0002]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Tesanovic, Wang-7478 and further in view of YI (US 2023/0232277 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Yi”).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 does not explicitly disclose wherein the trigger condition is: an indication from an access point (AP), or an indication at an end of a last XR packet, or an indication by timing information in the BSR, or an event.
However, Yi from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the trigger condition is: an indication from an access point (AP) (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or an indication at an end of a last XR packet, or an indication by timing information in the BSR, or an event (Yi Para[0226] The remaining time below threshold (i.e. event, timing information) causes emergency BSR sending).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen, Tesanovic and Wang-7478 to have the feature of “wherein the trigger condition is: an indication from an access point (AP), or an indication at an end of a last XR packet, or an indication by timing information in the BSR, or an event” as taught by Yi. The motivation would have been for improving communication performance of latency critical services by sending emergency buffer status report (Yi Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Chen in view of Tesanovic and Wang-7478 does not explicitly disclose wherein the event is a remaining time below a threshold.
However, Yi from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the event is a remaining time below a threshold (Yi Para[0226] The remaining time below threshold (i.e. event, timing information) causes emergency BSR sending).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen, Tesanovic and Wang-7478 to have the feature of “wherein the event is a remaining time below a threshold” as taught by Yi. The motivation would have been for improving communication performance of latency critical services by sending emergency buffer status report (Yi Para[0002]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415