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
This communication is in response to amendment filed on 12/30/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 13-16, and 18-27 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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, 4, 5, 7, 13-16, and 18-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Damnjanovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0196275).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Damnjanovic discloses a communications device (figure 6), being a first communications device and comprising a processor (figure 6 processor 606), a memory (figure 6 memory 608), and a program or an instruction stored in the memory (paragraphs 18 and 37) and executable on the processor, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the first communications device to perform:
a transmission processing method, comprising:
sending, by a first communications device, transmission assistance information of first data, the transmission assistance information being used for assisting a second communications device to execute transmission processing of the first data (see figures 4 and 5; paragraphs 20, 45, 46, 52-55, 65, and 66: terminal determines and sends lowest delay budget included in a MAC header’s bit to base station. The base station uses the delay budget to schedule/process uplink packets. Other assistance information includes data volume in buffer [0046], transmission arrival time [0046], transmission remaining time [0064]).
the first data is grouped based on logical channel groups (paragraphs 59-61: a radio bearer is corresponding to a logical channel/group);
wherein the sending, by the first communications device, the transmission assistance information of the first data comprises:
sending, by the first communications device, first information of each group of data among at least one group of data (see figures 4 and 5; paragraphs 20, 45, 46, 50, 51, 60, 61, 62, 64: terminal determines and sends lowest delay budget of a radio bearer/logical channel included in a MAC header’s bit to base station including transmission remaining time);
wherein the first information comprises transmission remaining time: wherein the transmission remaining time is transmission remaining time corresponding to an earliest data packet in a current data group, wherein the earliest data packet is a data packet with an earliest transmission arrival time (paragraphs 49-51, 64, 65: remaining time of head-of-the line packets/SLU);
in a case that transmission remaining time of data-to-be-transmitted in a buffer corresponding to a target logical channel group is less than a remaining time threshold, reporting, by the first communications device, the transmission assistance information for the target logical channel group (paragraphs 49-51, 59-61, 64, 65: remaining time of head-of-the line packet/SLU is reported before exceeding delay threshold. Target logical channel group is considered the same as the first data group/logical channel/radio bearer);
wherein the transmission remaining time of the data-to-be-transmitted in the buffer is transmission remaining time of an earliest data packet in the buffer, and the remaining time threshold is configured for the target logical channel group (paragraphs 49-51, 59-61, 64, 65: delay threshold is configured for radio bearer; remaining time of head of the line packet is reported);
wherein the first data is data corresponding to a first logical channel group, and the target logical channel group is one or more logical channel groups among the first logical channel group (paragraphs 50, 51, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64: target and first logical group is the same radio bearer).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected similarly as claim 1 above. Damnjanovic’s figure 5 further teaches second device/base station’s perspective. Damnjanovic further teaches a communications device (figure 7), being a second communications device and comprising a processor (figure 7 processor 714), a memory (figure 7 memory 716), and a program or an instruction stored in the memory (paragraphs 23 and 37) and executable on the processor, wherein when the program or the instruction is executed by the processor.
Claim 19 is rejected similarly as claim 1 above. Damnjanovic further teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a program or an instruction, wherein when the program or the instruction is executed by a processor (paragraphs 18 and 37).
Claim 20 is rejected similarly as claim 13 above. Damnjanovic further teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a program or an instruction, wherein when the program or the instruction is executed by a processor (paragraphs 23 and 37).
Regarding claims 2, 16, 22, , all limitations of claims 1, 13, 15 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches the first data is grouped based on at least one of:
logical channels (paragraph 59, 61 and 62);
time threshold values (paragraphs 61 and 62); or
data packets (paragraph 49: set of data packets).
Regarding claims 4, 23, 25, all limitations of claims 1, 13, 15 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches the first information comprises at least one of:
a data volume-to-be-transmitted [0046];
transmission waiting time [0050 and 0051];
transmission arrival time [0046];
an association relationship with other data groups among the at least one group of
data (paragraphs 59).
Regarding claim 5, all limitations of claim 4 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches the transmission waiting time comprises at least one of:
transmission waiting time of a target data packet corresponding to a current data group (paragraphs 60-62 and 64: delay budget).
Regarding claim 7, all limitations of claim 4 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches the association relationship with the other data groups among the at least one group of data comprises at least one of: identical processing, wherein the identical processing refers to performing an identical processing on the current data group and other data groups (paragraph 59: each radio bearer is performed by the same/identical process of defined capacity, delay, bit error rate, etc.).
Regarding claim 14, all limitations of claim 13 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches the transmission processing comprises at least one of:
data scheduling (paragraphs 20 and figure 5 step 508).
Regarding claims 21, 24, all limitations of claims 13, 15 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches wherein each data group comprises at least one data packet, and transmission remaining time of a data packet is determined based on a moment of actual reporting of the transmission assistance information and transmission timeout time of the data packet (paragraph 49).
Regarding claims 26, all limitations of claims 25 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches wherein the transmission waiting time comprises at least one of: transmission waiting time of a target data packet corresponding to a current data group (paragraphs 49, 51, 50, 62, 64).
Regarding claims 27, all limitations of claims 25 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches wherein the transmission arrival time comprises at least one of: transmission arrival time of a target data packet corresponding to a current data group (paragraphs 49-51: timestamped).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0196275) in view of Esswie et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0239730).
Regarding claim 6, all limitations of claim 4 are disclosed above. Damnjanovic further teaches transmission arrival time of a target data packet corresponding to a current data group (paragraph 51: each SDU can be timestamped when it arrives at buffer).
Damnjanovic does not teach transmit transmission arrive time/first information to base station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Esswie discloses UE time stamps its UL packet arrivals and embeds the UL timing information within a buffer status report (Table 1; paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Damnjanovic transmit transmission arrive time/first information to base station for latency determination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 16 of Remark, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the condition under which the access terminal reports the MAC header with the code corresponding to the delay threshold) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In page 17 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that Damnjanovic fails to teach “in a case that transmission remaining time of data-to-be-transmitted in a buffer corresponding to a target logical channel group is less than a remaining time threshold, reporting, by the first communications device, the transmission assistance information for the target logical channel group; wherein the transmission remaining time of the data-to-be-transmitted in the buffer is transmission remaining time of an earliest data packet in the buffer, and the remaining time threshold is configured for the target logical channel group.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the target logical channel group is the same as the first data group/radio bearer (one logical channel group among the first logical channel group). Thus, Damnjanovic discloses the limitation of reporting remaining time of head-of-the line packet/SLU of radio bearer/logical channel in buffer (paragraphs 49-51, 59-61, 64, 65).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights