DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 7 February 2024.
Claims 1-12 are under examination.
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 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 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, 6, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shrestha et al. (US 2019/0387578 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shrestha discloses:
A base station apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; andShrestha discloses a radio access network (RAN) node (base station) including processing circuitry configured to perform scheduling and control operations (Abstract; Fig. 1) .
one or more memories that stores a computer-readable instruction for causing, when executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors to function as:Shrestha discloses that the base station performs operations (e.g., determining SR configuration, identifying logical channels, generating uplink grants) via processing functionality, which inherently requires memory storing instructions executed by processors (Abstract; Fig. 2).
a notifying unit configured to notify a terminal apparatus connected to or trying to establish a connection with the base station apparatus of information indicating a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) format that can be used to transmit a scheduling request and can include information indicating a communication type;
Shrestha discloses configuring a UE with SR configurations that define resources (including PUCCH resources) used to transmit scheduling requests:
“the SR configuration may include a set of radio resources… used for transmitting a scheduling request” (¶0023)
Shrestha further discloses that different SR configurations correspond to different logical channel groups associated with different data characteristics:
“different SR configurations may correspond to different logical channel groups” (¶0024)
and
logical channel groups correspond to different traffic types or priorities (Fig. 6)
Thus, the notified PUCCH/SR configuration can include information indicating a communication type via its association with logical channel group/data characteristics.
a selecting unit configured to select a type of grant to transmit to the terminal apparatus from a plurality of types of grants on a basis of a communication type indicated in the scheduling request received from the terminal apparatus via the PUCCH format;
Shrestha discloses that upon receiving the SR, the base station determines the SR configuration and identifies the corresponding logical channel:
“determine the SR configuration… determine the logical channel…” (¶0023; Fig. 2)
Because the SR configuration corresponds to a logical channel group associated with data characteristics (communication type), the SR indicates a communication type.
Shrestha further discloses generating an uplink grant based on that determination:
“generate and transmit a UL grant for that logical channel” (¶0023)
Thus, the base station selects a type of grant based on the communication type indicated in the scheduling request.
and a transmitting unit configured to transmit the selected type of grant to the terminal apparatus as a response to the scheduling request.
Shrestha discloses:
“the base station… may notify the UE… by sending an uplink (UL) grant message” (¶0021)
Thus, the base station transmits the selected grant in response to the scheduling request.
Regarding claim 6, Shrestha discloses:A terminal apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; andShrestha discloses a UE including processing circuitry configured to perform SR-related operations (Abstract; Fig. 1) .
one or more memories that stores a computer-readable instruction for causing, when executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors to function as:Shrestha discloses UE operations (e.g., determining logical channel, selecting SR configuration, transmitting SR), which inherently require memory storing instructions executed by processors (Abstract; Fig. 2) .
a receiving unit configured to receive, from a base station apparatus connected to or trying to establish a connection with the terminal apparatus, information indicating a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) format that can be used to transmit a scheduling request and can include information indicating a communication type;
Shrestha discloses that the UE is configured with SR configurations defining resources used to transmit scheduling requests:
“the SR configuration may include a set of radio resources… used for transmitting a scheduling request” (¶0023)
These configurations are provided by the base station and correspond to logical channel groups associated with data characteristics (communication type):
“different SR configurations may correspond to different logical channel groups” (¶0024)
a transmitting unit configured to transmit the scheduling request including information indicating a communication type to the base station apparatus via the PUCCH format;
Shrestha discloses:
“the UE may use… PUCCH to send a Scheduling Request (SR)” (¶0021)
and that the UE selects an SR configuration based on the data to be transmitted:
UE determines logical channel → selects SR configuration → transmits SR (Fig. 2; ¶0023)
Because the SR configuration corresponds to a logical channel associated with data characteristics, the SR includes information indicating a communication type.
and a receiving unit configured to receive, from the base station apparatus, a type of grant selected from a plurality of types of grants on a basis of the communication type indicated in the scheduling request.
Shrestha discloses:
“generate and transmit a UL grant for that logical channel” (¶0023)
Thus, the UE receives a grant selected based on the communication type indicated by the SR.
Claim 9 recites a method performed by a base station apparatus of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites a method performed by a terminal apparatus of claim 6, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause a base station apparatus to perform the method according to claim 9, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause a terminal apparatus to perform the method according to claim 10, and is thus similarly rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (US 2019/0387578 A1) in view of Shaheen et al (US Pub. 2018/0368173), and where applicable further in view of Moberg et al (US Pub. 2012/0039263).
Regarding claim 2, Shrestha discloses:
a plurality of types of grants generated based on SR configuration / logical channel, as evidenced by:
“determine the SR configuration… determine the logical channel… generate and transmit a UL grant for that logical channel” (¶0023)
Shrestha does not specifically disclose:
“a grant for permitting transmission of user data without transmitting a buffer status report”
Shaheen discloses:
transmission of user data using an uplink grant without requiring waiting for buffer status report-based scheduling, as evidenced by:
the first uplink grant may be sufficient to transmit all data without waiting for a subsequent grant based on a BSR (¶0072)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to permit transmission of user data without transmitting a buffer status report, since doing so reduces latency and improves uplink scheduling efficiency by avoiding additional signaling overhead.
Regarding claim 3, Shrestha discloses:
grant generation based on SR and logical channel, as evidenced by:
“generate and transmit a UL grant for that logical channel” (¶0023)
Shrestha does not disclose:
“a grant for causing a buffer status report to be transmitted and for causing user data to be transmitted without waiting for the buffer status report to be received”
Shaheen discloses:
uplink grant supporting transmission of data and/or buffer-related information, and
transmission of user data without waiting for subsequent BSR-based scheduling, as evidenced by:
a UE may transmit data in the first uplink grant without waiting for a later grant triggered by a BSR (¶0072)
Moberg further discloses:
transmitting buffer status report together with user data using the same uplink grant, as evidenced by:
the UE may send buffered data along with a BSR using an uplink grant (¶0027)
Thus, it would have been obvious to permit transmission of both buffer status report and user data without waiting for the buffer status report to be received, since combining such transmissions improves efficiency and reduces scheduling delay.
Regarding claim 5, Shrestha discloses:
transmitting uplink grants based on SR and logical channel, as evidenced by:
“generate and transmit a UL grant for that logical channel” (¶0023)
Shrestha does not disclose:
“a grant for collectively permitting transmission of buffer status report and transmission of user data”
Moberg discloses:
a single uplink grant permitting transmission of both buffer status report and user data, as evidenced by:
the UE transmits buffered data together with a BSR using the granted uplink resources
Thus, it would have been obvious to transmit a grant permitting both buffer status report and user data, since combining transmissions improves resource utilization and reduces signaling overhead.
Claims 7 and 8 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 2 and 3, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (US 2019/0387578) in view of Mallick et al. (US 2022/0086855).
Regarding claim 4, Shrestha discloses:
transmitting an uplink grant based on SR and logical channel, as evidenced by:
“determine the SR configuration… determine the logical channel… generate and transmit a UL grant for that logical channel” (¶0023)
Shrestha does not disclose:
“transmits a grant for buffer status report and a grant for user data separately”
Mallick discloses:
multiple buffer status report (BSR) types corresponding to different transmission types, as evidenced by:
“there are separate BSR MAC CEs defined for each type of transmission…” (¶0073)
situations where a single UL grant is insufficient to carry all BSR information, as evidenced by:
“the UL grant is inadequate to carry a complete BSR…” (¶0073)
prioritization and selective transmission when resources are insufficient, as evidenced by:
“perform a BO prioritization if an UL grant is inadequate…” (¶0073)
Thus, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to:
transmit buffer status report and user data using separate grants,
since Mallick teaches that:
multiple BSR elements and data may compete for limited uplink resources, and
a single grant may be insufficient to carry all information, requiring prioritization and separate handling of transmissions,
and modifying Shrestha to use separate grants would have been an obvious way to ensure reliable transmission of both buffer status information and user data when uplink resources are limited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-0734. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights