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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/14/26 is acknowledged. Since this Office Action contains an Action on the Merits of the Claims, Applicant’s Election of Group I is considered FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van et al (US 2026/0223110) [R1].
For claims 1 and 10, R1 discloses one or more memories storing processor-executable code (paragraphs 5, 33, 43-49, 140-142 memory, instructions, processors, controllers); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (paragraphs 5, 33, 43-49, 140-142 memory, instructions, processors, controllers): receive configuration information that enables the UE to report a padding indication that pertains to one or more padding bits the UE inserts and sends in one or more uplink transmissions (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 70-80, 99-105, 128, 146); receive a grant that indicates a set of resources for transmission of an uplink message by the UE (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 70-80, 99-105, 128, 146 grant for UE is used to transmit the padding indication); transmit the uplink message (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 70-80, 99-105, 128, 146 use the grant to output the indication); and transmit the padding indication in accordance with the configuration information and based on a quantity of padding included by the UE in the uplink message (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 70-80, 99-105, 128, 146 UE sets BSR active flag based on the number of padding bits and transmits).
For claims 2 and 11, R1 discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a padding indication capability indicating that the UE is capable of reporting the padding indication (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146 under BRI, this limitation is additionally met by the padding indication itself).
For claims 3 and 12, R1 discloses the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive a padding indication capability request, wherein the transmission of the padding indication capability is based at least in part on receiving the padding indication capability request (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146).
For claims 4 and 13, R1 discloses to transmit the padding indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit an indicator of a percentage of the uplink message or of a payload of the uplink message occupied by the padding (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146 padding ratio is signaled/signaled through BSR flag)
For claims 5 and 14, R1 discloses to transmit the padding indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit an indicator of a percentage range of the uplink message or of a payload of the uplink message occupied by the padding (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146 padding ratio)
For claims 6 and 15, R1 discloses to transmit the padding indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit an indicator that the quantity of padding included in the uplink message satisfies a threshold (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146).
For claims 7 and 16, R1 discloses satisfaction of the threshold comprises an amount of data for the transmission of the uplink message that is less than a UE buffer threshold (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146).
For claims 8 and 17, R1 discloses satisfaction of the threshold comprises an amount of data for the transmission of the uplink message that is more than a UE buffer threshold (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146 arrived packets greater than a threshold).
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.
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.
Claims 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by R1 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over R1.
For claims 9 and 18, R1 discloses the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive one or more future uplink grants, wherein the one or more future uplink grants are adjusted based at least in part on the padding indication (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146). Or, in the alternative, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of receive/transmit one or more future uplink grants, wherein the one or more future uplink grants are adjusted based at least in part on the padding was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use receive/transmit one or more future uplink grants, wherein the one or more future uplink grants are adjusted based at least in part on the padding. The technical reasoning to combine would be to more efficient transmission and design choice.
For claim 19, R1 discloses adjusting the one or more future uplink grants comprises adjusting transport block size via a modulation and coding scheme, physical resource block size, physical resource block allocation, allocation of layers, skipping of a scheduled uplink grant, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 5-8, 18-22, 69-82, 89-105, 128, 146). Or, in the alternative, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a adjusting the one or more future uplink grants comprises adjusting transport block size via a modulation and coding scheme, physical resource block size, physical resource block allocation, allocation of layers, skipping of a scheduled uplink grant, or a combination thereof was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use adjusting the one or more future uplink grants comprises adjusting transport block size via a modulation and coding scheme, physical resource block size, physical resource block allocation, allocation of layers, skipping of a scheduled uplink grant, or a combination thereof. The technical reasoning to combine would be for more efficient transmission and design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR100898762 discloses a padding indication for Nodebs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights