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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/23/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “to cause the UE to: a radio resource control signal, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” However, such claim language is unclear because it does not appear to state what the UE actually does with “a radio resource control signal, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” Claim 8 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret such language broadly wherein the UE potentially does anything with “” Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “to cause the UE to: a downlink control information signal for a subsequent uplink grant, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” However, such claim language is unclear because it does not appear to state what the UE actually does with “a downlink control information signal for a subsequent uplink grant, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” Claim 9 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret such language broadly wherein the UE potentially does anything with “a downlink control information signal for a subsequent uplink grant, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “to cause the network entity to: a radio resource control signal, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” However, such claim language is unclear because it does not appear to state what the network entity actually does with “a radio resource control signal, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” Claim 22 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret such language broadly wherein the network entity potentially does anything with “a radio resource control signal, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “to cause the network entity to: a downlink control information signal for a subsequent uplink grant, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” However, such claim language is unclear because it does not appear to state what the network entity actually does with “a downlink control information signal for a subsequent uplink grant, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.” Claim 23 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret such language broadly wherein the network entity potentially does anything with “a downlink control information signal for a subsequent uplink grant, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof.”
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.
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, 6-11, 13-16, 20-25, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanamarlapudi et al. (US 2021/0329620, provided by Applicant, Kanamarlapudi hereinafter). Regarding claims 1 and 29, Kanamarlapudi teaches a method and a user equipment (UE) (User equipment (UE); Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 1-7; [0048]-[0049], [0081]-[0084]), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (The UE may be comprised of a memory; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 1-7; [0048]-[0049]); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (The UE may be comprised of a processor coupled with the memory; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 1-7; [0048]-[0049]) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive a first downlink message comprising configuration information for enabling a dynamic logical channel prioritization (As can be seen in at least step 403 of Fig. 4, the UE may receive a first downlink message comprising multiple logical channel prioritization (LCP) scheduling configurations. At least paragraph [0081] describes such configurations as being dynamically activated/deactivated. The UE may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as receiving a first downlink message comprising configuration information for enabling a dynamic logical channel prioritization; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0081]-[0084]), the dynamic logical channel prioritization associated with a dynamic scheduling of one or more logical channels over one or more carriers (Communication links between the UE and the base station are described as being through one or more carriers. The multiple LCP scheduling configurations may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a dynamic logical channel prioritization that is associated with a dynamic scheduling of one or more logical channels over one or more carriers; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]); receive a second downlink message indicating a selection of the dynamic logical channel prioritization from the configuration information (As can be seen in at least step 405 of Fig. 4, the UE may receive a second downlink message activating a 1st LCP scheduling configuration. The UE may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as receiving a second downlink message indicating a selection of the dynamic logical channel prioritization from the configuration information; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0084]); and transmit using the one or more logical channels over the one or more carriers, wherein the one or more logical channels are multiplexed over the one or more carriers based at least in part on the selection of the dynamic logical channel prioritization (As can be seen in at least steps 413 and 415 of Fig. 4, the UE may apply the 1st LCP scheduling configuration and perform transmission to the base station. At least paragraph [0026] discusses performing communication with the base station using multiplexing over one or more carriers. The UE may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as transmitting using the one or more logical channels over the one or more carriers, wherein the one or more logical channels are multiplexed over the one or more carriers based at least in part on the selection of the dynamic logical channel prioritization; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0083]-[0086]). Regarding claim 2, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the second downlink message comprises an indication to select or to switch from the dynamic logical channel prioritization (The message activating the LCP scheduling configuration may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising an indication to select or to switch from the dynamic logical channel prioritization. The Examiner would also like to note that the message in step 417 may also be broadly reasonably interpreted as a second downlink message comprising an indication to select or to switch from the dynamic logical channel prioritization; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0084], [0088]-[0089]). Regarding claim 6, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic logical channel prioritization is dynamically updated based at least in part on one or more transmission parameters associated with the one or more carriers or the one or more logical channels (The base station is described as activating the LCP configuration based on a variety of different conditions. For example, the base station may activate one LCP configuration during the slow start phase and may switch to the second LCP configuration during the steady state phase. In another example, the base station may activate/deactivate the LCP configurations based on a QUIC condition, an Ethernet condition, etc. In another example, the activation/deactivation may be based on MAC level conditions, such as queue size, etc. The dynamic logical channel prioritization may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being dynamically updated based at least in part on one or more transmission parameters associated with the one or more carriers or the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0084], [0099]). Regarding claim 7, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 6. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the one or more transmission parameters comprise one or more of: a signal to interference and noise ratio, a physical resource block usage, an interference level, a buffer status report, a timing advance group, a power headroom report, a quantity of waveforms, a modulation and coding scheme, a transport block size, or any combination thereof (The base station is described as activating the LCP configuration based on a variety of different conditions. For example, the base station may activate one LCP configuration during the slow start phase and may switch to the second LCP configuration during the steady state phase. In another example, the base station may activate/deactivate the LCP configurations based on a QUIC condition, an Ethernet condition, etc. In another example, the activation/deactivation may be based on MAC level conditions, such as queue size, etc. Such conditions may be broadly reasonably interpreted as including at least parameters related to a physical resource block usage and a buffer status report. The base station is also described as performing inter-cell interference coordination, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a transmission parameter including an interference level; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0025], [0083]-[0084], [0099]). Regarding claim 8, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: a radio resource control signal, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof (The configuration is described as being potentially performed using a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) and the UE is described as transmitting a MAC transport block (TB); Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0025], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 9, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: a downlink control information signal for a subsequent uplink grant, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof (The configuration is described as being potentially performed using a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) and the UE is described as transmitting a MAC transport block (TB); Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0025], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 10, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic logical channel prioritization indicates a resource scheduling correspondence between each of the one or more carriers or a group of the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels (Communication links between the UE and the base station are described as being through one or more carriers. The dynamic logical channel prioritization may be broadly reasonably interpreted as indicating a resource scheduling correspondence between each of the one or more carriers or a group of the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 11, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic logical channel prioritization indicates a resource scheduling correspondence between a primary cell or a primary cell group, or a secondary cell or a secondary cell group, associated with the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels (The LCP scheduling configurations are described as being used for uplink transmission with the base station (i.e., a primary cell), and may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as indicating a resource scheduling correspondence between a primary cell or a primary cell group, or a secondary cell or a secondary cell group, associated with the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 13, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic logical channel prioritization indicate a transport block size partition correspondence between each of the one or more carriers or a group of the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels (The LCP scheduling configurations are described as including parameters to set how much data is included in the uplink MAC TB for the logical channels. The dynamic logical channel prioritization indicating a transport block size partition correspondence between each of the one or more carriers or a group of the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0081]-[0084]), and zero or more bits from the one or more logical channels or the group of the one or more logical channels be configurable to be transmitted over the one or more carriers or the group of the one or more carriers (Transmission using a logical channel that is multiplexed over one or more carriers may be broadly reasonably interpreted as having zero or more bits from the one or more logical channels or the group of the one or more logical channels that are configurable to be transmitted over the one or more carriers or the group of the one or more carriers; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 14, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic scheduling of the dynamic logical channel prioritization is updated on a per-slot basis (Transmission configuration is described as potentially being performed on a per-slot basis. The dynamic scheduling of the dynamic logical channel prioritization may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being updated on a per-slot basis; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 2A-2D, 4-7; [0039]-[0041], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claims 15 and 30, Kanamarlapudi teaches a method a network entity (Base station; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 1-7; [0046]-[0047], [0081]-[0084]), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (The base station may be comprised of a memory; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 1-7; [0053]); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (The base station may be comprised of a processor coupled with the memory; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 1-7; [0046]-[0047], [0053]) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: output a first downlink message comprising configuration information for enabling a dynamic logical channel prioritization at a user equipment (UE) (As can be seen in at least step 403 of Fig. 4, the base station may transmit a first downlink message comprising multiple logical channel prioritization (LCP) scheduling configurations to a user equipment (UE). At least paragraph [0081] describes such configurations as being dynamically activated/deactivated. The base station may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as outputting a first downlink message comprising configuration information for enabling a dynamic logical channel prioritization at a user equipment (UE); Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0081]-[0084]), the dynamic logical channel prioritization comprising a dynamic scheduling of one or more logical channels over one or more carriers (Communication links between the UE and the base station are described as being through one or more carriers. The multiple LCP scheduling configurations may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a dynamic logical channel prioritization that comprises a dynamic scheduling of one or more logical channels over one or more carriers; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]); and output a second downlink message indicating a selection of the dynamic logical channel prioritization from the configuration information (As can be seen in at least step 405 of Fig. 4, the base station may transmit a second downlink message activating a 1st LCP scheduling configuration. The base station may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as outputting a second downlink message indicating a selection of the dynamic logical channel prioritization from the configuration information; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0084]) based at least in part on one or more uplink signaling conditions associated with scheduling the one or more logical channels over the one or more carriers (The base station is described as activating the LCP configuration based on a variety of different conditions. For example, the base station may activate one LCP configuration during the slow start phase and may switch to the second LCP configuration during the steady state phase. In another example, the base station may activate/deactivate the LCP configurations based on a QUIC condition, an Ethernet condition, etc. In another example, the activation/deactivation may be based on MAC level conditions, such as queue size, etc. The base station may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as outputting the second downlink message indicating a selection of the dynamic logical channel prioritization based at least in part on one or more uplink signaling conditions associated with scheduling the one or more logical channels over the one or more carriers; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0084], [0099]). Regarding claim 16, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the second downlink message comprises an indication to select or to switch from the dynamic logical channel prioritization (The message activating the LCP scheduling configuration may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising an indication to select or to switch from the dynamic logical channel prioritization. The Examiner would also like to note that the message in step 417 may also be broadly reasonably interpreted as a second downlink message comprising an indication to select or to switch from the dynamic logical channel prioritization; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0084], [0088]-[0089]). Regarding claim 20, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic logical channel prioritization is dynamically updated based at least in part on one or more transmission parameters associated with the one or more carriers or the one or more logical channels (The base station is described as activating the LCP configuration based on a variety of different conditions. For example, the base station may activate one LCP configuration during the slow start phase and may switch to the second LCP configuration during the steady state phase. In another example, the base station may activate/deactivate the LCP configurations based on a QUIC condition, an Ethernet condition, etc. In another example, the activation/deactivation may be based on MAC level conditions, such as queue size, etc. The dynamic logical channel prioritization may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being dynamically updated based at least in part on one or more transmission parameters associated with the one or more carriers or the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0084], [0099]). Regarding claim 21, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 20. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the one or more transmission parameters comprise one or more of: a signal to interference and noise ratio, a physical resource block usage, an interference level, a buffer status report, a timing advance group, a power headroom report, a quantity of waveforms, a modulation and coding scheme, a transport block size, or any combination thereof (The base station is described as activating the LCP configuration based on a variety of different conditions. For example, the base station may activate one LCP configuration during the slow start phase and may switch to the second LCP configuration during the steady state phase. In another example, the base station may activate/deactivate the LCP configurations based on a QUIC condition, an Ethernet condition, etc. In another example, the activation/deactivation may be based on MAC level conditions, such as queue size, etc. Such conditions may be broadly reasonably interpreted as including at least parameters related to a physical resource block usage and a buffer status report. The base station is also described as performing inter-cell interference coordination, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a transmission parameter including an interference level; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0025], [0083]-[0084], [0099]). Regarding claim 22, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: a radio resource control signal, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof (The configuration is described as being potentially performed using a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) and the base station is described as receiving a MAC transport block (TB); Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0025], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 23, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: a downlink control information signal for a subsequent uplink grant, a medium access control signal, or any combination thereof (The configuration is described as being potentially performed using a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) and the base station is described as receiving a MAC transport block (TB); Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0025], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 24, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic logical channel prioritization indicates a resource scheduling correspondence between each of the one or more carriers or a group of the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels (Communication links between the UE and the base station are described as being through one or more carriers. The dynamic logical channel prioritization may be broadly reasonably interpreted as indicating a resource scheduling correspondence between each of the one or more carriers or a group of the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 25, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic logical channel prioritization indicates a resource scheduling correspondence between a primary cell or a primary cell group, or a secondary cell or a secondary cell group, associated with the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels (The LCP scheduling configurations are described as being used for uplink transmission with the base station (i.e., a primary cell), and may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as indicating a resource scheduling correspondence between a primary cell or a primary cell group, or a secondary cell or a secondary cell group, associated with the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 27, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic logical channel prioritization indicates a transport block size partition correspondence between each of the one or more carriers or a group of the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels (The LCP scheduling configurations are described as including parameters to set how much data is included in the uplink MAC TB for the logical channels. The dynamic logical channel prioritization indicating a transport block size partition correspondence between each of the one or more carriers or a group of the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0081]-[0084]), and zero or more bits from the one or more logical channels or the group of the one or more logical channels are configurable to be transmitted over the one or more carriers or the group of the one or more carriers (Transmission using a logical channel that is multiplexed over one or more carriers may be broadly reasonably interpreted as having zero or more bits from the one or more logical channels or the group of the one or more logical channels that are configurable to be transmitted over the one or more carriers or the group of the one or more carriers; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]). Regarding claim 28, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches the dynamic scheduling of the dynamic logical channel prioritization is updated on a per-slot basis (Transmission configuration is described as potentially being performed on a per-slot basis. The dynamic scheduling of the dynamic logical channel prioritization may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being updated on a per-slot basis; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 2A-2D, 4-7; [0039]-[0041], [0081]-[0084]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 12, 17-19, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamarlapudi et al. (US 2021/0329620, provided by Applicant, Kanamarlapudi hereinafter) in view of Hui et al. (US 2022/0264554, Hui hereinafter). Regarding claim 3, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches that the UE may have a capability to support the dynamic logical channel prioritization (As can be seen in at least steps 413 and 415 of Fig. 4, the UE may apply the 1st LCP scheduling configuration and perform transmission to the base station. The UE may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as having a capability to support the dynamic logical channel prioritization; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0086]). However, Kanamarlapudi does not specifically disclose the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a first uplink message indicating the capability of the UE. Hui teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a first uplink message indicating the capability of the UE (A wireless device may report its radio access capability information to a base station, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising transmitting a first uplink message indicating the capability of the UE; Hui; [0223]-[0225]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hui regarding communication configuration with the teachings as in Kanamarlapudi regarding communication configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been at least to enhance physical radio transmission by dynamically or semi-dynamically changing the transmission configuration depending on transmission requirements and radio conditions (Hui; [0206], [0223]-[0225]). Regarding claim 4, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches communication configuration for the UE may be based on scheduling the one or more logical channels over the one or more carriers in the dynamic logical channel prioritization (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, the UE may be configured to communicate using LCP scheduling configuration. Communication configuration for the UE may may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being based on scheduling the one or more logical channels over the one or more carriers in the dynamic logical channel prioritization; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0083]-[0086]). However, Kanamarlapudi does not specifically disclose the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a second uplink message indicating a recommendation or a preference for communication configuration. Hui teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a second uplink message indicating a recommendation or a preference for communication configuration (A wireless device may report its radio access capability information to a base station, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as indicating a recommendation or a preference for communication configuration. The wireless device may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as transmitting a second uplink message indicating a recommendation or a preference for communication configuration; Hui; [0223]-[0225]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hui regarding communication configuration with the teachings as in Kanamarlapudi regarding communication configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been at least to enhance physical radio transmission by dynamically or semi-dynamically changing the transmission configuration depending on transmission requirements and radio conditions (Hui; [0206], [0223]-[0225]). Regarding claim 5, Kanamarlapudi and Hui teach the limitations of claim 4. Hui further teaches the second uplink message comprises a channel state information signal, a medium access control element signal, or a radio resource control signal (Messages related to configuration are described as potentially including radio resource control (RRC) and medium access control element (MAC CE) signaling. The second uplink message may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising a channel state information signal, a medium access control element signal, or a radio resource control signal; Hui; Figs. 2A-2B; [0212]-[0215], [0223]-[0225]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hui regarding communication configuration with the teachings as in Kanamarlapudi regarding communication configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been at least to enhance physical radio transmission by dynamically or semi-dynamically changing the transmission configuration depending on transmission requirements and radio conditions (Hui; [0206], [0223]-[0225]). Regarding claim 12, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanamarlapudi further teaches communication configuration comprises the dynamic logical channel prioritization indicates a resource scheduling correspondence between the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels (Communication links between the UE and the base station are described as being through one or more carriers. The multiple LCP scheduling configurations may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted configuring communication for dynamic logical channel prioritization that indicates a resource scheduling correspondence between the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]). However, Kanamarlapudi does not specifically disclose communication configuration comprises indicating one or more timing advance groups associated with the one or more carriers. Hui teaches indicating one or more timing advance groups associated with the one or more carriers (Communication configuration may comprise the base station indicating one or more timing advance values for one or more timing advance groups; Hui; [0214]-[0215]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hui regarding communication configuration with the teachings as in Kanamarlapudi regarding communication configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been at least to enhance physical radio transmission by dynamically or semi-dynamically changing the transmission configuration depending on transmission requirements and radio conditions (Hui; [0206], [0223]-[0225]). Regarding claim 17, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches that the UE may have a capability to support the dynamic logical channel prioritization (As can be seen in at least steps 413 and 415 of Fig. 4, the UE may apply the 1st LCP scheduling configuration and perform transmission to the base station. The UE may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as having a capability to support the dynamic logical channel prioritization; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0083]-[0086]). However, Kanamarlapudi does not specifically disclose the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: receive a first uplink message indicating the capability of the UE. Hui teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive a first uplink message indicating the capability of the UE (A wireless device may report its radio access capability information to a base station, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising receiving a first uplink message indicating the capability of the UE; Hui; [0223]-[0225]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hui regarding communication configuration with the teachings as in Kanamarlapudi regarding communication configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been at least to enhance physical radio transmission by dynamically or semi-dynamically changing the transmission configuration depending on transmission requirements and radio conditions (Hui; [0206], [0223]-[0225]). Regarding claim 18, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches communication configuration for the UE may be based on scheduling the one or more logical channels over the one or more carriers in the dynamic logical channel prioritization (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, the UE may be configured to communicate using LCP scheduling configuration. Communication configuration for the UE may may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being based on scheduling the one or more logical channels over the one or more carriers in the dynamic logical channel prioritization; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0083]-[0086]). However, Kanamarlapudi does not specifically disclose the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: receive a second uplink message indicating a recommendation or a preference for communication configuration. Hui teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive a second uplink message indicating a recommendation or a preference for communication configuration (A wireless device may report its radio access capability information to a base station, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as indicating a recommendation or a preference for communication configuration. The base station may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as receiving a second uplink message indicating a recommendation or a preference for communication configuration; Hui; [0223]-[0225]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hui regarding communication configuration with the teachings as in Kanamarlapudi regarding communication configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been at least to enhance physical radio transmission by dynamically or semi-dynamically changing the transmission configuration depending on transmission requirements and radio conditions (Hui; [0206], [0223]-[0225]). Regarding claim 19, Kanamarlapudi and Hui teach the limitations of claim 18. Hui further teaches the second uplink message comprises a channel state information signal, a medium access control element signal, or a radio resource control signal (Messages related to configuration are described as potentially including radio resource control (RRC) and medium access control element (MAC CE) signaling. The second uplink message may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising a channel state information signal, a medium access control element signal, or a radio resource control signal; Hui; Figs. 2A-2B; [0212]-[0215], [0223]-[0225]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hui regarding communication configuration with the teachings as in Kanamarlapudi regarding communication configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been at least to enhance physical radio transmission by dynamically or semi-dynamically changing the transmission configuration depending on transmission requirements and radio conditions (Hui; [0206], [0223]-[0225]). Regarding claim 26, Kanamarlapudi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kanamarlapudi further teaches communication configuration comprises the dynamic logical channel prioritization indicates a resource scheduling correspondence between the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels (Communication links between the UE and the base station are described as being through one or more carriers. The multiple LCP scheduling configurations may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted configuring communication for dynamic logical channel prioritization that indicates a resource scheduling correspondence between the one or more carriers and each of the one or more logical channels or a group of the one or more logical channels; Kanamarlapudi; Figs. 4-7; [0026], [0081]-[0084]). However, Kanamarlapudi does not specifically disclose communication configuration comprises indicating one or more timing advance groups associated with the one or more carriers. Hui teaches indicating one or more timing advance groups associated with the one or more carriers (Communication configuration may comprise the base station indicating one or more timing advance values for one or more timing advance groups; Hui; [0214]-[0215]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hui regarding communication configuration with the teachings as in Kanamarlapudi regarding communication configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been at least to enhance physical radio transmission by dynamically or semi-dynamically changing the transmission configuration depending on transmission requirements and radio conditions (Hui; [0206], [0223]-[0225]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474