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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 11/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/04/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,178,673 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. In additional to this recorded, terminal disclaimer also needed to be filed for US Patent Nos. 11,825,508 and 10,701,708.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filled on 11/24/2025, with respect to non-statutory double of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The non-statutory double of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filled on 11/24/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view Yamada et al. (WO 2011/093271), Meylan et al. (US 2009/0280798), KWON et al. (KR 2011/0122047), and HE et al. (CN 101772049).
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over YAMADA et al. (WO 2011/093271) (refer as YAMADA WO’271) [English translation is provided by US 2012/0294270 since US publication is continuation of WO 2011/093271 (Application # PCT/JP2011/051321), see MPEP 901.05] in view of Meylan et al. (US 2009/0280798).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses an apparatus [see Fig. 4, ¶ 113; mobile station device 200] comprising:
a transmission buffer [see Fig. 4, ¶ 113; radio unit 203]; and
a processor [see Fig. 4, ¶ 120; Scheduling unit 204] coupled with the transmission buffer, the processor to:
process information that configures a timer for a logical channel of a user equipment (UE) [¶¶ 125-127; Scheduling unit 204 (of mobile station device 200) maps the control data and transport channel obtained through the downlink from data extraction unit 207, subsequent to processing as necessary, to the downlink logical channel that controls various timers (YAMADA WO’271, page 11 lines 26-28, 37)];
determine, based at least in part on data for the logical channel becoming available in a transmission buffer, a buffer status report is triggered [¶¶ 160-164; when uplink data belonging to a certain logical channel becomes available for transmission through an upper layer (RLC or PDCP), a regular BSR is triggered (WO’271, page 15 lines 20-31)];
start, the timer [¶ 127; start, the timer (YAMADA WO’271, page 11 lines 37-39)]; and
trigger, based at least in part on the timer not running and said determination that the buffer status report is triggered, a scheduling request [¶ 164; trigger, based at least in part on the timer not running/(where the retxBSR-Timer has expired) and said determination that the buffer status report/(regular BSR) is triggered, a scheduling request/SR (YAMADA WO’271, page 15 lines 26-31)].
Yamada disclose all aspects of claim invention set forth above including start, the timer, but does not explicitly disclose start, based at least in part on said determination that the buffer status report is triggered, the timer.
However, Meylan discloses determine, based at least in part on data for the logical channel becoming available in a transmission buffer, a buffer status report is triggered [¶ 46; when UL data arrives in a user equipment (UE), a BSR is triggered; a BSR typically is a Medium Access Control Packet Data Unit (MAC PDU) that conveys a report of the UE buffer status, e.g., data size in the buffer]
start, based at least in part on said determination that the buffer status report is triggered, the timer [¶¶ 40, 50; each logical channel in a set of logical channels has a BSR Prohibit time interval in which the UE waits prior to a RACH procedure occurs after a BSR is triggered; such a trigger starts the BSR Prohibit timer].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “start, based at least in part on said determination that the buffer status report is triggered, the timer” as taught by Meylan in the system of Yamada, so that it would employed to receive one, more than one, or all the data streams carried by the composite stream [see Meylan; ¶ 7].
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of Yamada and Meylan discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Yamada further discloses wherein the processor is to: buffer the data for the logical channel in the transmission buffer [¶¶ 181-183; a new MAC PDU is stored in the HARQ buffer corresponding to the HARQ process of interest, and transmission of new data is prepared (YAMADA WO’271, page 16 line 46 to page 17 line 3, page 17 lines 13-16)].
Regarding claims 9-10, the claims recite the method to perform the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media recited as in claims 1-2 respectively; therefore, claims 9-10 rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 1-2 respectively.
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2012/0294270) in view of Meylan et al. (US 2009/0280798), and further in view of HE et al. (CN 101772049).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of Yamada and Meylan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein processor is to:
identify uplink resources allocated based at least in part on the scheduling request; and
generate a signal to convey the buffer status report in the uplink resources.
However, HE discloses wherein the processor is to:
identify uplink resources allocated based at least in part on the scheduling request [¶ 72; receiving the uplink resource (UL Grant) of SR request to, indicating the multiplexing and assembly process]; and
generate a signal to convey the buffer status report in the uplink resources [¶ 72; generate a BSR MAC CE].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the processor is to: identify uplink resources allocated based at least in part on the scheduling request; and generate a signal to convey the buffer status report in the uplink resources” as taught by HE in the combined system of Yamada and Meylan, so that it would avoid the empty BSR and redundant meaningless sending of BSR triggering and improve performance of the system [see HE; ¶ 25].
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of Yamada, Meylan, and HE discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Yamada further discloses wherein the processor is to: monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to detect an uplink grant message [¶¶ 147-148; where a resource for a contention based uplink is to be scheduled, a CB-RNTI is used at a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (YAMADA WO’271, page 14 lines 17-25)].
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of Yamada, Meylan, and HE discloses the apparatus of claim 4.
The combined system of Yamada and Meylan does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is to: identify, based at least in part on the uplink grant message, the uplink resources
However, HE discloses wherein the processor is to: identify, based at least in part on the uplink grant message, the uplink resources [¶ 72; identify by receiving the uplink resource (UL Grant) of SR request to, indicating the multiplexing and assembly process].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the processor is to: identify, based at least in part on the uplink grant message, the uplink resources” as taught by HE in the combined system of Yamada and Meylan, so that it would avoid the empty BSR and redundant meaningless sending of BSR triggering and improve performance of the system [see HE; ¶ 25].
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of Yamada and Meylan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein to determine the buffer status report is triggered the processor is to: receive the data for the transmission buffer when the transmission buffer is empty; and determine, based at least in part on reception of the data for the transmission buffer when the transmission buffer is empty, the buffer status report is triggered.
However, HE discloses wherein to determine the buffer status report is triggered the processor is to: receive the data for the transmission buffer when the transmission buffer is empty [¶¶ 55-58; receiving the high priority data, as shown in Figure 3C, when receiving the high priority data, will trigger the Regular BSR that currently has no data, is empty BSR triggered]; and determine, based at least in part on reception of the data for the transmission buffer when the transmission buffer is empty, the buffer status report is triggered [¶ 58; determine, based at least in part on reception of the data for the transmission buffer when the transmission buffer is empty, the buffer status report is triggered].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein to determine the buffer status report is triggered the processor is to: receive the data for the transmission buffer when the transmission buffer is empty; and determine, based at least in part on reception of the data for the transmission buffer when the transmission buffer is empty, the buffer status report is triggered” as taught by HE in the combined system of Yamada and Meylan, so that it would avoid the empty BSR and redundant meaningless sending of BSR triggering and improve performance of the system [see HE; ¶ 25].
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of Yamada and Meylan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the data is first data and to determine the buffer status report is triggered the processor is to: determine, based at least in part on the first data having a higher priority than second data stored in the transmission buffer at a time of reception of the first data for the transmission buffer, the buffer status report is triggered.
However, HE discloses wherein the data is first data and to determine the buffer status report is triggered the processor is to: determine, based at least in part on the first data having a higher priority than second data stored in the transmission buffer at a time of reception of the first data for the transmission buffer, the buffer status report is triggered [¶ 62; received data with high priority or the number of padding bits is equal to or greater than the BSR MAC Control Element, size), terminal the buffering areas thereof in all suspension-type data to the eNodeB, the transmitting all suspension-type data, the data to be transmitted in the buffer area may be empty, lower in such a case, if the BSR is triggered, it may cause BSR or excess of Periodic BSR is triggered].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the data is first data and to determine the buffer status report is triggered the processor is to: determine, based at least in part on the first data having a higher priority than second data stored in the transmission buffer at a time of reception of the first data for the transmission buffer, the buffer status report is triggered” as taught by HE in the combined system of Yamada and Meylan, so that it would avoid the empty BSR and redundant meaningless sending of BSR triggering and improve performance of the system [see HE; ¶ 25].
Regarding claims 11-13 and 15-16, the claims recite the method of claim 9 to perform the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 1 recited as in claims 3-5 and 7-8 respectively; therefore, claims 11-13 and 15-16 rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 3-5 and 7-8 respectively.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Meylan et al. (US 2009/0280798) in view of KWON et al. (KR 2011/0122047).
Regarding claim 17, Meylan discloses a method [see Fig. 2, 3, ¶¶ 42-44; eNode/base station 302] comprising:
generating configuration information to configure a timer for a logical channel of a user equipment, the timer to delay transmission of a scheduling request, by the user equipment, that is associated with a triggered buffer status report [see Fig. 2, 3, ¶ 57; generating configuration information (configured by a wireless network management component, BSR Prohibit timer and various time intervals, such as SR/SPS time interval) to configure a timer for a logical channel of a user equipment, the timer to delay transmission of a scheduling request (delaying RRC messages, ¶ 55), by the user equipment, that is associated with a triggered buffer status report (a mobile device 700 that facilitates communicating a Buffer Status Report (BSR) utilizing a Scheduling Request (SR), see ¶ 61)]; and
“providing” a signal to include the configuration information, wherein the signal is to be transmitted to the user equipment [see Fig. 2, 3, ¶¶ 42-43; employ scheduling techniques such as Scheduling Request (SR), Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) to include the configuration information of at least one of a SR or an SPS, wherein the configuration information to be transmitted to mobile device 304].
Although, Meylan “providing” a signal to include the configuration information, wherein the signal is to be transmitted to the user equipment does not explicitly disclose generating a signal to include the configuration information.
However, KWON discloses generating configuration information to configure a timer for a logical channel of a user equipment [see Fig. 3, page 9 lines 29-30; configuring A-SRS or P-SRS setting for the uplink SCC additionally configured in the UE based on information of SR and / or BSR, which are parameters for determining aperiodic transmission received from the UE (page 13 lines 42-44)];
generating a signal to include the configuration information, wherein the signal is to be transmitted to the user equipment [see Fig. 13, page 21 lines 16-17; generating aperiodic transmission triggering message including aperiodic SRS configuration information, wherein the aperiodic transmission triggering message transmit to the terminal].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “generating a signal to include the configuration information, wherein the signal is to be transmitted to the user equipment” as taught by KWON in the combined system of Meylan, so that it would to improve system performance by minimizing the reduction of information loss and increasing system transmission efficiency has become an essential element [see KWON; page 2 lines 8-10].
Regarding claim 18, the combined system of Meylan and KWON discloses the method of claim 17.
Meylan further discloses further comprising: processing the scheduling request transmitted by the user equipment [¶¶ 46, 67; schedule component 818 can employ any suitable scheduling technique such as, but not limited to, a Scheduling Request (SR) and implement a RACH procedure].
KWON also discloses further comprising: processing the scheduling request transmitted by the user equipment [page 7 lines 37-42; eNB checks the information of the SR and the BSR received from the UE to determine whether to configure additional SCC to the UE].
Regarding claim 19, the combined system of Meylan and KWON discloses the method of claim 18.
Meylan does not explicitly disclose further comprising: generating, based at least in part on the scheduling request, an uplink grant message to be transmitted to the user equipment, the uplink grant message to schedule uplink resources for the user equipment.
However, KWON discloses further comprising: generating, based at least in part on the scheduling request, an uplink grant message to be transmitted to the user equipment [see Fig. 7, page 17 lines 10-11; step 770, eNB generates scheduling information for the additionally configured uplink SCC, based on the obtained channel information that includes the SR and the BSR, to be transmitted to UE], the uplink grant message to schedule uplink resources for the user equipment [see Fig. 7, page 17, lines 12-13; step 780, the UE transmits data through the uplink SCC further configured based on the received uplink scheduling information (UL grant information)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the device to: generate, based at least in part on the scheduling request, an uplink grant message to be transmitted to the user equipment, the uplink grant message to schedule uplink resources for the user equipment” as taught by KWON in the combined system of Meylan, so that it would to improve system performance by minimizing the reduction of information loss and increasing system transmission efficiency has become an essential element [see KWON; page 2 lines 8-10].
Regarding claim 20, the combined system of Meylan and KWON discloses the method of claim 19.
Meylan further discloses further comprising: processing an uplink message received in the uplink resources, wherein the uplink message includes the triggered buffer status report [¶¶ 46-47; process an Uplink (UL) transmission/uplink message received in the UL Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) transmission opportunities, wherein the Uplink (UL) transmission/uplink message includes the triggered buffer status report].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, GUPTA et al. (WO 2018/132100) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 4 and 8-10 for limitation “process information that configures a timer for a logical channel of a user equipment (UE); determine, based at least in part on data for the logical channel becoming available in a transmission buffer, a buffer status report is triggered” (Fig. 2, ¶¶ 58-66).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469