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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 7/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 17 are amended.
Claim 13 is canceled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 7/28/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 remain pending in the application.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2024/0373284 A1, hereinafter He) in view of Yanakiev et al. (US 2026/0113658 A1, hereinafter Yanakiev).
It is noted that the corresponding citation from He to the rejection of the claims is supported by Provisional Application 63/499,464 to which He claims the priority, and which has been filed on May 1, 2023. Thus, He was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
He teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment comprising at least one processor (see, He: Fig. 5, UE 502; Fig. 3, UE 350 comprising Controller/Processer 359) from a radio access network node (see, He: Fig. 5, BS 504), a buffer status reporting (i.e., BSR) configuration comprising an available table indication indicative of at least one buffer status report table usable by the user equipment to determine a buffer status report (see, He: Fig. 5, Steps 506-508; para. [0094], “The UE 502 may receive the buffer status table configuration from the base station 504. In some aspects, the buffer status table configuration may indicate the one or more BSR tables from a defined set of BSR tables.”; para. [0095], “The UE 502 may receive the additional control signaling that indicates the at least one BSR table from the base station 504. In some aspects, the buffer status table configuration may indicate a set of BSR tables for the UE. In such instances, the additional control signals may indicate at least one BSR table from the set of BSR tables for use by the UE.”, supports are found in Figs. 3 and 5 and para. [0094-0095] of 63/499,464.);
determining, by the user equipment, an amount of traffic, stored in a buffer corresponding to the user equipment, to be transmitted to the radio access network node to result in a determined amount of traffic (see, He: Fig. 5, Step 512; para. [0097], “The UE may select a BSR table from the multiple BSR tables. In some aspects, the selected BSR table may include a first BSR table. The UE may use the selected BSR table to look up a code point for the amount of data in its buffer.”, supports are found in Fig. 5 and para. [0097] of 63/499,464.);
determining, by the user equipment, at least one of the at least one buffer status report table to use to report the determined amount of traffic to the radio access network node to result in a determined at least one buffer status report table (see, He: Fig. 5, Step 512; para. [0097], “At 512, the UE 502 may transmit an indication reporting a selected BSR table from multiple BSR tables. … The UE may select a BSR table from the multiple BSR tables. In some aspects, the selected BSR table may include a first BSR table.”, supports are found in Fig. 5 and para. [0097] of 63/499,464.); and
transmitting, by the user equipment to the radio access network node, at least one buffer status report comprising at least one buffered traffic amount indication (e.g., a codepoint) that corresponds, in the determined at least one buffer status report table, to at least one subamount of the determined amount of traffic (see, He: Fig. 5, Step 514; para. [0098], “At 514, the UE 502 and the base station 504 may communicate with each other based on a BSR table. … In some aspects, communication with the network entity based on the first BSR table may include transmitting a BSR to the network entity using a codepoint corresponding to an amount of buffered data and an entry in the first BSR table.”, supports are found in Fig. 5 and para. [0098] of 63/499,464.).
He does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one buffered traffic amount indication comprises a first buffered traffic amount indication corresponding to a first traffic volume range in the determined at least one buffer status report table, wherein the at least one buffered traffic amount indication further comprises a second buffered traffic amount indication corresponding to a second traffic volume range in the determined at least one buffer status report table, wherein the at least one buffer status report comprises a first buffer status report that comprises the first buffered traffic amount indication, and wherein the at least one buffer status report further comprises a second buffer status report that comprises the second buffered traffic amount indication.
In the same field of endeavor, Yanakiev teaches that more than one BSR may be triggered for the same LCH/LCG such that the sum of the BSR indication accurately represents the buffered amount (see, Yanakiev: para. [0176], “More than one BSR could be triggered for the same LCH/LCG in the same TTI so that the sum is as accurate as possible. For instance, assuming 80 bytes are buffered but we can only indicate 10, 30, 50, 100; instead of signaling one BSR with 50, we could have two with 50 and 30.”). Yanakiev gives the specific example in which 80 bytes are buffered and available indications are 10, 30, 50 and 100; instead of reporting one BSR indicating 50, the UE may report two BSRs, one indicating 50 and another indicating 30 (see, Yanakiev: para. [0176]). Yanakiev further expressly teaches sending multiple BSR MAC CEs to build more accurate BSR knowledge at the gNB, including first underreporting and supplementing the first BSR with a second BSR such that the gNB uses the sum (see, Yanakiev: para. [0175]). Yanakiev generalizes this technique by teaching selecting a plurality of BSRs so that the sum of the reported buffer sizes is more accurate than a buffer size indicated by a single BSR (see, Yanakiev: para. [0220], “selecting a plurality of buffer status reports so that the sum of buffer sizes reported for the plurality of buffer status reports is more accurate than the buffer size indicated by a single one of the buffer status reports.”), and selecting at least two BSRs from a plurality of potential BSRs based upon the sum of the buffer sizes reported for the at least two BSRs (see, Yanakiev: para. [0221], “providing an apparatus with an ability to select a buffer status report from a plurality of potential buffer status reports; and selecting at least two of buffer status reports to be used in conjunction with each other, where the at least two buffer status reports are selected from the plurality of potential buffer status reports based upon a sum of buffer sizes reported for the at least two buffer status reports.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of He in combination of the teachings of Yanakiev in order to apply Yanakiev’s multiple-BSR technique to He’s selectable BSR-table system because both references seek to improve the accuracy of BSR quantization and thereby provide the network with more accurate buffered-traffic information for uplink resource allocation. The combination would have predictably permitted a buffered amount that is not accurately represented by a single BSR codepoint to be represented by two BSR indications whose reported amounts collectively more accurately represent the buffered traffic (see, Yanakiev: para. [0220-0223]).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
He further teaches wherein receiving, by the user equipment from the radio access network node, a buffer status report table configuration comprising the at least one buffer status report table (see, He: Fig. 5, Step 506; para. [0094], “At 506, the base station 504 may provide a buffer status table configuration indicating one or more BSR tables.”, supports are found in Fig. 5 and para. [0094] of 63/499,464.); and
storing, by the user equipment to a memory (see, He: Fig. 5, UE 502; Fig. 3, UE 350 comprising Memory 360) corresponding to the user equipment, the at least one buffer status report table (see, He: para. [0137], “Aspect 14 is a computer-readable medium storing computer executable code, where the code when executed by a processor causes the processor to implement any of Aspects 1-11.”; para. [0097], “The UE may select a BSR table from the multiple BSR tables. In some aspects, the selected BSR table may include a first BSR table. The UE may use the selected BSR table to look up a code point for the amount of data in its buffer. The UE may provide the code point within a BSR to the base station.”, wherein storing a BSR able to a UE memory is inherent in order for the UE to be able to use it for look up. Supports are found in Figs. 3 and 5 and para. [0097] of 63/499,464.).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev teaches all limitations in claim 2.
He further teaches wherein the buffer status report table configuration comprises multiple buffer status report tables (see, He: para. [0094], “At 506, the base station 504 may provide a buffer status table configuration indicating one or more BSR tables.”, support is found in para. [0094] of 63/499,464.) and wherein the available table indication is indicative of less than all of the multiple buffer status report tables (see, He: para. [0095], “At 508, the base station 504 may provide additional control signaling that indicates at least one BSR table from a set of BSR tables configured for the UE 502. The UE 502 may receive the additional control signaling that indicates the at least one BSR table from the base station 504. In some aspects, the buffer status table configuration may indicate a set of BSR tables for the UE. In such instances, the additional control signals may indicate at least one BSR table from the set of BSR tables for use by the UE.”, support is found in para. [0095] of 63/499,464. Because the separately signaled table or tables are selected from the previously configured set, He teaches that the available table indication may identify fewer than all of the multiple configured BSR tables.).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
He further teaches wherein the at least one buffer status report further comprises at least one table indication indicative of the determined at least one buffer status report table (see, He: Fig. 5, Step 512; para. [0097], “At 512, the UE 502 may transmit an indication reporting a selected BSR table from multiple BSR tables. The UE may transmit the indication reporting the selected BSR table to the base station 504.”, supports are found in Fig. 5 and para. [0097] of 63/499,464.).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
He further teaches wherein the at least one subamount of the determined amount of traffic equals the determined amount of traffic (see, He: para. [0097], “The UE may provide the code point within a BSR to the base station. The base station may use the BSR table to decode the code point received from the UE, such that the base station is informed of the amount of data the UE would like to transmit to the base station.”; para. [0098], “In some aspects, communication with the network entity based on the first BSR table may include transmitting a BSR to the network entity using a codepoint corresponding to an amount of buffered data and an entry in the first BSR table.”, supports are found in para. [0097-0098] of 63/499,464.).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev teaches all limitations in claim 1.
He further teaches wherein receiving, from the radio access network node, an activated table indication indicative of at least one of the at least one buffer status report table indicated by the available table indication (see, He: Fig. 5, Step 508; para. [0095], “The UE 502 may receive the additional control signaling that indicates the at least one BSR table from the base station 504. In some aspects, the buffer status table configuration may indicate a set of BSR tables for the UE. In such instances, the additional control signals may indicate at least one BSR table from the set of BSR tables for use by the UE.”, supports are found in Fig. 5 and para. [0095] of 63/499,464.).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards a non-transitory machine-readable medium (see, He: Fig. 3, Memory 360), comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (see, He: Fig. 3, Controller/Processor 359) of a user equipment (see, He: Fig. 3, UE 350), facilitate performance of operations, comprising: the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Claims 4-7, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Yanakiev further in view of Chen et al. (WO 2024/162027 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev teaches all limitations in claim 3.
Yanakiev further teaches wherein the available table indication is indicative of a first buffer status report table of the multiple buffer status report tables and a second buffer status report table of the multiple buffer status report tables (see, Yanakiev: para. [0222], “selecting at least two of buffer status reports to be used in conjunction with each other, where the at least two buffer status reports are selected from the plurality of potential buffer status reports based upon a sum of buffer sizes reported for the at least two buffer status reports.”), wherein the method further comprises:
determining that the radio access network node is implementing an underscheduling of uplink resources in response to receiving buffer status reports to result in a determined underscheduling (see, Yanakiev: para. [0175], “Send multiple BSR MAC CEs to build up a more accurate BSR knowledge at the gNB. Simplest example is to first under-report and then pad with second BSR report so that gNB uses the sum.”; para. [0212], “receiving a signal from a user equipment indicating that a changeable buffer status report table does not meet an accuracy requirement; and based upon the receiving of the signal, sending information to the user equipment configured for changing the changeable buffer status report table in the user equipment.”),
wherein the determining of the at least one buffer status report table comprises: based on the determined underscheduling, determining a first transmission number corresponding to use of the first buffer status report table to transmit at least one of the at least one buffer status report comprising the at least one buffered traffic amount indication that corresponds to the at least one subamount of the determined amount of traffic to result in a determined first transmission number; based on the determined underscheduling, determining a second transmission number corresponding to use of the second buffer status report table to transmit at least one of the at least one buffer status report comprising the at least one buffered traffic amount indication that corresponds to the at least one subamount of the determined amount of traffic to result in a determined second transmission number (see, Yanakiev: para. [0175], “Send multiple BSR MAC CEs to build up a more accurate BSR knowledge at the gNB. Simplest example is to first under-report and then pad with second BSR report so that gNB uses the sum.”; para. [0128], “more than one BSR could be triggered for the same LCH/LCG in the same TTI so that the sum is as accurate as possible. For instance, assuming 80 bytes are buffered, but we can only indicate 10, 30, 50, 100; instead of signaling one BSR with 50, we could have two: one with 50 and another with 30.”).
He in view of Yanakiev does not explicitly teach wherein determining a lower of the determined first transmission number or the determined second transmission number to result in a determined lowest transmission number, wherein the determined at least one buffer status report table is the first buffer status report table or the second buffer status report table that corresponds to the determined lowest transmission number.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches detecting a discrepancy between the amount of data actually remaining in the UE buffer and the buffer amount that the base station could calculate or estimate based on a previous BSR and subsequent UL transmissions pursuant to an UL grant. Specifically, in Fig. 17, the UE transmits a BSR at S170, transmits buffered data after receiving an UL grant at S171, and at S172 determines whether the difference between the actual buffer and the buffer amount the base station could calculate based on the prior BSR and subsequent transmission exceeds a threshold. If so, the UE transmits another BSR at S173 (see, Chen: Fig. 17, S170-S173 & para. [0162-0170]; Fig. 18 and para. [0171-0174] provide a corresponding procedure based upon the lower boundary of the reported BSR range.). Chen therefore teaches determining a scheduling/reporting discrepancy based on the network’s scheduling following a previous BSR.
Although He, Yanakiev, and Chen do not expressly state that the UE calculates a first number of BSR transmissions for a first candidate table, calculates a second number for a second candidate table, compares the two numbers, and selects the table corresponding to the lower number. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention implementing Yanakiev’s multiple-BSR technique using the multiple selectable BSR tables taught by He to determine the number of BSR indications required using each candidate table and select the table requiring fewer transmissions. He teaches that different BSR tables may have different minimum values, maximum values, step-size factors and types of step sizes, and therefore different reporting characteristics (see, He: para. [0094], “The buffer status table configuration may configure the at least one parameter that may include at least one of a minimum buffer size, a maximum buffer size, a step size factor, or a type of step size for each of the one or more BSR tables. In some aspects, the one or more BSR tables may include at least one of different minimum buffer sizes, different maximum buffer sizes, different step size factors, or different types of step sizes.”). Yanakiev teaches representing one buffered amount using multiple BSR indications (see, Yanakiev: para. [0176], “More than one BSR could be triggered for the same LCH/LCG in the same TTI so that the sum is as accurate as possible. For instance, assuming 80 bytes are buffered but we can only indicate 10, 30, 50, 100; instead of signaling one BSR with 50, we could have two with 50 and 30.”; para. [0221], “providing an apparatus with an ability to select a buffer status report from a plurality of potential buffer status reports; and selecting at least two of buffer status reports to be used in conjunction with each other, where the at least two buffer status reports are selected from the plurality of potential buffer status reports based upon a sum of buffer sizes reported for the at least two buffer status reports.”). Chen teaches repeatedly updating/reporting buffer information following uplink scheduling and expressly identifies more efficient scheduling and reduced radio-resource usage as advantages of improved BSR reporting (see, Chen: Fig. 17; para. [0167-170]; Fig. 19; para. [0175-0177]; Fig. 21; para. [0183]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of He in view of Yanakiev in combination of the teachings of Chen in order to represent a buffered amount through multiple BSR indications, determining which available table accomplishes that known reporting function using fewer BSR transmissions, which would have been a predictable optimization that reduces BSR signaling overhead and radio-resource consumption.
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches all limitations in claim 4.
He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches wherein the determining of the first transmission number further comprises: determining, from the first buffer status report table, a first traffic volume range index associated with the first traffic volume range that minimizes, based on the underscheduling, a first subamount remainder of the at least one subamount of the determined amount of traffic; determining at least one first subamount remainder transmission number corresponding to use of the first buffer status report table to transmit at least one of the at least one buffer status report comprising the at least one buffered traffic amount indication that corresponds to the first subamount remainder of the determined amount of traffic to result in a determined first subamount transmission number, wherein the first transmission number equals one plus the determined first subamount transmission number, and wherein determining the second transmission number further comprises: determining, from the second buffer status report table, a second traffic volume range index associated with the second traffic volume range that minimizes, based on the underscheduling, a second subamount remainder of the at least one subamount of the determined amount of traffic; and determining at least one second subamount remainder transmission number corresponding to use of the second buffer status report table to transmit at least one of the at least one buffer status report comprising the at least one buffered traffic amount indication that corresponds to the second subamount remainder of the determined amount of traffic to result in a determined second subamount transmission number, wherein the second transmission number equals one plus the determined second subamount transmission number (He teaches BSR tables containing respective codepoints corresponding to buffer amounts/ranges and teaches selecting among tables having different ranges and resolutions (see, He: para. [0080] [0082] [0097]). Yanakiev teaches representing a buffered amount using multiple BSR indications, including the specific 80-byte example represented using 50 and 30 (see, Yanakiev: para. [0176]). Chen teaches determining a range boundary corresponding to a BSR index and calculating a remaining/difference amount relative to the actual buffer. For example, Chen’s Fig. 17 embodiment determines a difference using the upper boundary E of the previously reported BSR range and the actual buffered amount B. Chen provides the example in which B initially equals 60,000 bytes, the reported range has an upper boundary E of 62,599 bytes, and E-B equals 2,599 bytes. After 50,000 bytes are transmitted pursuant to an UL grant, B equals 10,000 and E equals 12,599, leaving the same 2,599-byte discrepancy (see, Chen: Fig. 17, S170-S173; para. [0162-0170]). Chen’s Fig. 18 embodiment similarly uses the lower boundary E’ of the BSR range. For a 60,000-byte buffer, E’ equals 58,784 and B-E’ equals 1,216 bytes. Following transmission of 50,000 bytes, B equals 10,000 and E’ equals 8,784, leaving a 1,216-byte difference (see, Chen: Fig. 18, S180-S183; para. [0171-0174]) Thus, Chen teaches determining a reported traffic-volume range and calculating a remaining/difference amount associated with that range after scheduling/transmission.).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches all limitations in claim 4.
Yanakiev further teaches wherein the buffer status reporting configuration further comprises an underscheduling indication indicative of the underscheduling (see, Yanakiev: para. [0175], “Send multiple BSR MAC CEs to build up a more accurate BSR knowledge at the gNB. Simplest example is to first under-report and then pad with second BSR report so that gNB uses the sum.”; para. [0212], “receiving a signal from a user equipment indicating that a changeable buffer status report table does not meet an accuracy requirement; and based upon the receiving of the signal, sending information to the user equipment configured for changing the changeable buffer status report table in the user equipment.”; para. [0213], “sending information to the user equipment configured for changing the changeable buffer status report table in the user equipment.”).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev teaches all limitations in claim 4.
Yanakiev further teaches wherein based on a previous uplink resource grant of at least one uplink resource, granted by the radio access network node in response to receiving at least one previous buffer status report transmitted by the user equipment before the transmitting of the at least one buffer status report, determining, by the user equipment, the underscheduling (see, Yanakiev: para. [0213], “receiving a signal from a user equipment indicating that a changeable buffer status report table does not meet an accuracy requirement; and based upon the receiving of the signal, sending information to the user equipment configured for changing the changeable buffer status report table in the user equipment.”).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards a user equipment (see, He: Fig. 3, UE 350), comprising: at least one processor (see, He: Fig. 3, Controller/Processor 359) configured to process executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: the method of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claims 1, 2, and 4 above.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards the user equipment of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 8. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 14:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches all limitations in claim 11.
Yanakiev further teaches wherein the first traffic volume range corresponds to a determined first buffer status report table of the at least one buffer status report table, and wherein the second traffic volume range corresponds to a determined second buffer status report table of the at least one buffer status report table (see, Yanakiev: para. [0175-0176] [0220-0223]).
Regarding claim 15:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches all limitations in claim 11.
He in view of Yanakiev does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one buffer status report comprises a first buffer status report comprising a first determined table indication indicative of the determined first buffer status report table, and wherein the at least one buffer status report further comprises a second buffer status report comprising a second determined table indication indicative of the determined second buffer status report table.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein the at least one buffer status report comprises a first buffer status report comprising a first determined table indication indicative of the determined first buffer status report table, and wherein the at least one buffer status report further comprises a second buffer status report comprising a second determined table indication indicative of the determined second buffer status report table (see, Chen: Fig. 28; para. [021], “The BSR Table Indication in field T1 indicates that BSR table associated with the index in Buffer Size 1 (i.e. the lookup table to use to identify the data size in one or more buffers using the index in the Buffer Size 1 field). Similarly, the BSR Table Indication in field T2 indicates that BSR table associated with the index in Buffer Size 2.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of He in view of Yanakiev in combination of the teachings of Chen in order for the first BSR to contain the table indication corresponding to its first selected table and for the second BSR to contain the table indication corresponding to its second selected table (see, Chen: Fig. 28 and para. [0210]).
Regarding claim 16:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches all limitations in claim 11.
He teaches wherein the at least one buffer status report table comprises multiple buffer status report tables (see, He: Fig. 5, supports are found in Fig. 5 of 63/499,464.).
Yanakiev further teaches wherein using multiple BSRs to represent one buffered amount (see, Yanakiev: para. [0175-0176] [0220-0223]).
Although both He and Yanakiev do not expressly state that a table is selected because it produces fewer BRS transmissions than another candidate table, it would been obvious to select the table requiring fewer BSR transmissions to perform the known reporting function because doing so reduces signaling overhead and radio-resource consumption.
Regarding claim 18:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev teaches all limitations in claim 17.
As discussed above, He teaches multiple BSR tables having different buffer-size ranges, resolutions and step sizes and UE selection among the tables. Yanakiev teaches representing buffered traffic using multiple BSR indications whose reported values are used together.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches selecting a BRS table according to the buffered amount and selecting a BSR index corresponding to a traffic-volume range (see, Chen: Fig. 26, S261-263). Chen further teaches determining a remaining/difference amount between the actual buffer and the buffer amount represented/estimated from the prior BSR after subsequent UL scheduling and transmission (see, Chen: Figs. 17-18, S170-S173 and S180-S183).
Although He, Yanakiev, and Chen do not expressly disclose performing the complete claimed recursive calculation for every candidate table and then selecting the table yielding the lowest number of traffic-volume ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yanakiev’s multiple-BSR reporting procedure to each of the finite candidate BSR tables taught by He and Chen. For each candidate table, selecting an initial range corresponding to the buffered amount, determining the remaining amount following the first representation/scheduling operation, selecting a subsequent range corresponding to that remainder, and repeating until the buffered amount is represented involves applying the known BSR range-selection and remainder operations according to their established functions. Because the number of required BSR indications is readily determinable for each candidate table, comparing those counts and selecting the table yielding the lowest number would have been a predictable optimization of the finite known alternatives and would reduce BSR signaling and radio-resource usage. Chen expressly recognizes more efficient scheduling and reduced overall radio-resource usage as benefits of improved BSR operation.
Regarding claim 19:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches all limitations in claim 18.
Yanakiev in view of Chen further teaches wherein the at least one buffered traffic amount indication comprises an initial buffered traffic amount indication indicative of the determined initial lowest traffic volume range, or wherein the at least one buffered traffic amount indication comprises a subsequent buffered traffic amount indication indicative of the determined at least one subsequent lowest traffic volume range (As discussed above, Yanakiev teaches a first BSR indication and a subsequent/supplemental BSR indication used together to represent buffered traffic (see, Yanakiev: para. [0128] [0169] [0176] [0220] [0221]). Chen teaches that each BSR buffer-size indication/index corresponds to a respective traffic-volume range in the selected BSR table (see, Chen: Abstract). Accordingly, the combination teaches an initial buffered-traffic indication corresponding to an initial range and a subsequent buffered-traffic indication corresponding to a subsequent range).
Regarding claim 20:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches all limitations in claim 19.
Yanakiev in view of Chen further teaches wherein the at least one buffer status report comprises a first buffer status report comprising the initial buffered traffic amount indication, wherein the at least one table indication is indicative of a first buffer status report table, of the multiple buffer status report tables, that comprises the determined initial lowest traffic volume range, wherein the at least one buffer status report further comprises a second buffer status report comprising the subsequent buffered traffic amount indication, and wherein the at least one table indication is indicative of a second buffer status report table of the multiple buffer status report tables that comprises the determined at least one subsequent lowest traffic volume range (As discussed above, Yanakiev teaches transmitting multiple BSR indications used together to represent buffered traffic (see, Yanakiev: para. [0128] [0169] [0176] [0220] [0221]). Chen teaches associating each respective Buffer Size indication with a table indication identifying the BSR table used for that indication. Specifically, Fig. 28 teaches T1 identifying the table associated with Buffer Size 1 and T2 identifying the table associated with Buffer Size 2, and expressly states that different BSR tables may be used for respective Buffer Size fields (see, Chen: Fig. 28 and para. [0210], “The BSR Table Indication in field T1 indicates that BSR table associated with the index in Buffer Size 1 (i.e. the lookup table to use to identify the data size in one or more buffers using the index in the Buffer Size 1 field). Similarly, the BSR Table Indication in field T2 indicates that BSR table associated with the index in Buffer Size 2.”). Accordingly, the combination teaches a first BSR comprising an initial buffered-traffic indication and an indication identifying its associated table, and a second BSR comprising a subsequent buffered-traffic indication and an indication identifying its associated table.).
Regarding claim 21:
As discussed above, He in view of Yanakiev and Chen teaches all limitations in claim 11.
Yanakiev further teaches wherein selecting one or more multiple BSR tables and selecting multiple BSR reports for use together (see, Yanakiev: para. [0175-0176] [0220-0223] wherein Yanakiev teaches using multiple BSRs to represent one buffered amount.).
He in view of Yanakiev does not explicitly teach wherein the determined at least one buffer status report table comprises at least two different buffer status report tables.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein the determined at least one buffer status report table comprises at least two different buffer status report tables (see, Chen: Fig. 28 and para. [0210] wherein different BSR tables may be used for respective Buffer Size fields.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of He in view of Yanakiev in combination of the teachings of Chen in order for the at least two BSRs used in the combined system to employ at least two different BSR tables when the different tables provide the appropriate ranges/precision for the respective reported portions of buffered traffic (see, Chen: Fig. 28 and para. [0210]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, 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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
