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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 05/12/2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, and 16 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/12/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220353950_A1_Chen in view of US_20220183049_A1_Lee, US_20240098532_A1_Rune, and US_20230413346_A1_Kuo.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, configuration information for an application layer measurement reporting (Chen figure 2A, steps 206 and 207, and paragraph 60, “…and a measurement configuration (e.g., an application layer measurement configuration, MDT measurement configuration or/and a SON measurement configuration…”); generating, based on the configuration information, a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) including a MAC service data unit (SDU) for an application layer measurement report message (Chen figure 2A, steps 208-210, and paragraph 64, “…The UE 102 can transmit a measurement report or other suitable report in a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) Protocol Data Unit (PDU) to base station 106 via the DRB…UE 102 can generate a PDCP SDU including the report, encrypt the PDCP SDU, and construct a PDCP PDU including the encrypted PDCP SDU according to the DRB configuration…”); a logical channel (LCH) of signaling radio bearer 4 (SRB4) (Chen paragraph 61, “…and transmits 210 the RRC message to base station 104 via the configured SRB4 (associated with logical channel identity value 4)…”); and transmitting, to the base station, the MAC PDU (Chen figure 2A, step 210, and paragraph 4, “…SRB4 resources support RRC messages that include application-layer measurement reporting information, also over the DCCH”),
but does not teach identifying that an uplink (UL) grant for the MAC PDU is associated with the shared spectrum, based on the identification, determining a channel access priority class (CAPC) of the MAC PDU, and transmitting, to the base station, the MAC PDU after performing a channel access procedure based on the CAPC of the MAC PDU; receiving, from a base station, a UE capability enquiry message requesting capabilities of the UE for an application layer measurement reporting; transmitting, to the base station, a UE capability information message indicating that the UE is capable of supporting the application layer measurement reporting on a shared spectrum; and wherein in case that the configuration information does not indicate a CAPC for a logical channel (LCH) of signaling radio bearer 4 (SRB4), the CAPC of the MAC PDU is determined based on a predetermined CAPC.
Lee from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: identifying that an uplink (UL) grant for the MAC PDU is associated with the shared spectrum, based on the identification, determining a channel access priority class (CAPC) of the MAC PDU (Lee figure 10, steps 1004-1008, and paragraph 81, “In embodiments, the particular LBT type (e.g., type 1 or type 2 uplink channel access) that the UE 201 applies is signalled via uplink grant for uplink PUSCH transmission on LAA SCells, except for AUL transmissions. For type 1 UL channel access on AUL, the RAN 210 signals the CAPC for each logical channel and the UE 201 selects the lowest CAPC (e.g., with a higher number in table CAPC-1) of the logical channel(s) with MAC SDU multiplexed into the MAC PDU. The MAC CEs except padding BSR use the highest CAPC (e.g., the lowest number in table CAPC-1). For type 2 uplink channel access on AUL, the UE 201 may select logical channels corresponding to any CAPC for UL transmission in the subframes signalled by the RAN 210 in common DL control signalling…”), and transmitting, to the base station, the MAC PDU after performing a channel access procedure based on the CAPC of the MAC PDU (Lee figure 10, step 1010, and paragraph 177, “…A UL grant is either received dynamically on the PDCCH, in a Random Access Response…”, also read paragraphs 178-179, 181).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lee into Chen, since Chen suggests a technique for transmitting a measurement report in a PDCP PDU to the base station, and Lee suggests the beneficial way of transmitting the MAC PDU to the base station based on the selected CAPC so that/thus optimize Quality of Service, and efficient utilization of shared spectrum (Lee paragraphs 37) in the analogous art of communication.
Chen and Lee do not teach receiving, from a base station, a UE capability enquiry message requesting capabilities of the UE for an application layer measurement reporting; transmitting, to the base station, a UE capability information message indicating that the UE is capable of supporting the application layer measurement reporting on a shared spectrum; and wherein in case that the configuration information does not indicate a CAPC for a logical channel (LCH) of signaling radio bearer 4 (SRB4), the CAPC of the MAC PDU is determined based on a predetermined CAPC.
Rune from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: receiving, from a base station, a UE capability enquiry message requesting capabilities of the UE for an application layer measurement reporting (Rune figure 7A, UE capability inquiry, and paragraph 162, “…send a UE Capability Enquiry message to request the UE to report its application layer measurement capabilities…”); transmitting, to the base station, a UE capability information message indicating that the UE is capable of supporting the application layer measurement reporting (Rune figure 7B, UE capability information) on a shared spectrum (Rune paragraph 289, 303, unlicensed spectrum is corresponding to the claimed “shared spectrum”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Rune into Chen and Lee, since Chen and Lee suggest a technique for configuring UE measurement, and Rune suggests the beneficial way of using UE’s application layer measurement capabilities so that/thus the network configures UE’s QoE measurement according to the UE’s capability (Rune paragraph 163) in the analogous art of communication.
Chen, Lee, and Rune do not teach wherein in case that the configuration information does not indicate a CAPC for a logical channel (LCH) of signaling radio bearer 4 (SRB4), the CAPC of the MAC PDU is determined based on a predetermined CAPC.
Kuo from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein in case that the configuration information does not indicate a CAPC for a logical channel (LCH) of signaling radio bearer 4 (SRB4) (Kuo paragraph 12, “…when performing Type 1 LBT for the transmission of an uplink transport block (TB) and the CAPC is not indicated in the DCI… The lowest priority CAPC of the logical channel(s) with MAC SDU multiplexed in the TB is used otherwise. Since there is no CAPC defined for the SRB4, the UE behavior may become ambiguous when applying these rules to select the CAPC for the TB conveying SRB4. For example, it is noted that SRB4 is carried by DCCH (according to TS 38.331) and thus rule (3) described previously should be applied for a TB carrying SRB4. However, the rule requires the UE to choose the highest priority CAPC of the DCCH(s), and it is not clear how the UE should select the CAPC when the DCCH corresponds to SRB4 whose CAPC is not defined in the standard. The exemplary embodiments are related to defining CAPC rules specific to QoE reporting on SRB4 for the UE, such that the UE can properly implement the generic rules defined by the standard to select the CAPC for a TB conveying QoE reports on SRB4…”), the CAPC of the MAC PDU is determined based on a predetermined CAPC (Kuo paragraph 48, “… the UE 110 determines the CAPC for the transport block (TB) conveying the SRB4 message based on the other logical channels that are multiplexed together in the same… when SRB4 is multiplexed with at least one data radio bearer (DRB) in the same TB, the UE 110 may simply use the CAPC configured for DRB, or always use the highest possible CAPC (CAPC value=1), or always use the lowest possible CAPC (CAPC value=4)”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kuo into Chen, Lee, and Rune, since Chen, Lee, and Rune suggest a technique for selecting CAPC for the MAC PDU, and Kuo suggests the beneficial way of when SRB4 is multiplexed with DRB in the same TB, the UE may simply use the CAPC configured for DRB, or always use the highest possible CAPC, or always use the lowest possible CAPC so that/thus properly implement the generic rules defined by the standard to select the CAPC for a TB conveying QoE reports on SRB4 (Kuo paragraph 12) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 2, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the method of claim 1, and Chen further teaches wherein the configuration information is received in a radio resource control (RRC) resume message. (Chen figure 15, step 1532, and paragraph 128, “… subsequently transmits 1532 an RRC Resume message including a full con figuration or delta configuration and omitting an SRB4 configuration to UE 102, similar to event 1432…”).
Regarding claim 3, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the method of claim 1, and Chen further teaches wherein the configuration information is received in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message after completion of a handover to a target cell operating on the shared spectrum (Chen figure 2B, steps 226, 227, 232, and paragraph 13, “unlicensed portions of the radio spectrum”).
Regarding claim 4, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the method of claim 1, and Lee further teaches wherein determining the CAPC of the MAC PDU further comprises: determining the CAPC of the MAC PDU based on the predetermined CAPC and one or more CAPCs of one or more other MAC SDUs included in the MAC PDU (Lee figure 10, steps 1004-1008, and paragraph 81, “In embodiments, the particular LBT type (e.g., type 1 or type 2 uplink channel access) that the UE 201 applies is signalled via uplink grant for uplink PUSCH transmission on LAA SCells, except for AUL transmissions. For type 1 UL channel access on AUL, the RAN 210 signals the CAPC for each logical channel and the UE 201 selects the lowest CAPC (e.g., with a higher number in table CAPC-1) of the logical channel(s) with MAC SDU multiplexed into the MAC PDU. The MAC CEs except padding BSR use the highest CAPC (e.g., the lowest number in table CAPC-1). For type 2 uplink channel access on AUL, the UE 201 may select logical channels corresponding to any CAPC for UL transmission in the subframes signalled by the RAN 210 in common DL control signalling…”, and paragraphs 33-34).
Regarding claim 5, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the method of claim 1, and Kuo further teaches wherein the predetermined CAPC corresponds to a highest priority CAPC (Kuo paragraph 48, “… the UE 110 determines the CAPC for the transport block (TB) conveying the SRB4 message based on the other logical channels that are multiplexed together in the same… when SRB4 is multiplexed with at least one data radio bearer (DRB) in the same TB, the UE 110 may simply use the CAPC configured for DRB, or always use the highest possible CAPC (CAPC value=1)…”).
Regarding claim 6, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a transceiver; and a controller operably coupled to the transceiver (Chen figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and a base station in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising: a transceiver; and a controller operably coupled to the transceiver (Chen figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, Chen, Lee, Rune, and Kuo teach the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
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 WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights