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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 10-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pelletier et al. (US 2010/0098011; hereinafter Pelletier).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Pelletier teaches a terminal device comprising (¶ [0084] Mobile terminal.):
at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, (Fig. 7, element 86 Processor, element 85 Memory; ¶ [0109] The functionalities of the UE may be implemented by hardware, firmware, and/or by software program instructions stored on a program memory and run on a processor.);
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to:
trigger a buffer status report by uplink data arrival on a logical channel (¶ [0066] A Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB) or a Data Radio Bearer (DRB) corresponds to one logical channel (LCH).; ¶ [0067] When new data becomes available while the UE has empty buffers, or if this data belongs to a LCH with higher priority than LCHs for which data is already buffered in the UE, a Regular BSR is triggered.); and
selectively trigger one or both of a scheduling request procedure and a random access procedure based on a predetermined condition for transmission of the triggered buffer status report (¶ [0068] When a Regular BSR is triggered, a SR is also triggered. If the UE has dedicated resources for SR (D-SR) on the PUCCH, the UE utilizes the D-SR. Otherwise the UE performs a Random Access-based SR (RA-SR).).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Pelletier teaches wherein selectively triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure based on a predetermined condition comprises: triggering the random access procedure or both the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure in a case where the logical channel which triggers the buffer status report has a priority higher than or equal to a first threshold (¶ [0080] A logical channel that has triggered a buffer status report. Determining whether the priority level associated with the logical channel exceeds a predefined threshold. Upon determining that the priority level exceeds the predefined threshold, the mobile terminal performs a scheduling request procedure.; ¶ [0106] If the priority of any of the LCHs passes the threshold. The UE may transmit the SR on a UE-dedicated resource on the PUCCH. Otherwise, the contention-free random-access procedure (RA-SR) described above is utilized.); or
triggering the scheduling request procedure in a case where the logical channel which triggers the buffer status report has a priority lower than the first threshold (Fig. 4; ¶ [0080] Upon determining that the priority level does not exceed the predefined threshold, the mobile terminal delays the scheduling request procedure until a predefined timing event has occurred.; ¶ [0098] The UE determines the priority of the LCH whose data triggered the BSR. If there is no LCH with data available for transmission for which the priority is higher than the predefined threshold. The UE waits for the event to occur before triggering the SR.).
Regarding claim 3, Pelletier teaches wherein the first threshold is configured as an absolute priority threshold or a relative priority threshold (¶ [0097] An SR is triggered only if an LCH with data available for transmission has a priority higher than a predefined threshold. The priority of the LCH must be higher than “no priority” or “low priority.”, and
the relative priority threshold is calculated from a highest priority of other logical channels containing available uplink data or from a lowest priority of other logical channels when none of the other logical channels contains available uplink data (¶ [0067] If this data belongs to a LCH with higher priority than LCHs for which data is already buffered in the UE.).
Regarding the claims 4 and 19, Pelletier teaches wherein selectively triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure based on a predetermined condition comprises: triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure based on configuration for the logical channel which triggers the buffer status report (Fig. 4, step 41 UE determines priority of LCH whose data triggered the BSR, step 42 LCH priority exceeds predefined threshold, step 43 UE performs SR procedure; ¶ [0098] The UE determines the priority of the LCH whose data triggered the BSR. The UE determines whether the priority of that LCH exceeds a predefined threshold. If so, the UE triggers the SR.; ¶ [0100] LCHs within an LCG are configured with no priority/priorities for the purpose of SR.; ¶ [0106] If the priority of any of the LCHs passes the threshold. The SR trigger may trigger the UE to perform an SR procedure. The UE may transmit the SR on a UE-dedicated resource on the PUCCH (D-SR). Otherwise, the contention-free random-access procedure (RA-SR) is utilized.).
Regarding claim 10, Pelletier teaches when a network response is received in the random access procedure, stopping the scheduling request procedure if it has been triggered (¶ [0068] Otherwise the UE performs a Random Access-based SR (RA-SR). An SR is pending until it is cancelled; an SR can be cancelled, for example, in the Transmission Time Interval (TTI) for which the UE receives a grant.; ¶ [0069] Second, the UE receives an RA response (RAR) with an uplink grant.).
Regarding claim 11, Pelletier teaches when an uplink grant is received for transmission of the buffer status report, stopping the random access procedure and/or the scheduling request procedure if they are ongoing (¶ [0068] An SR is pending until it is cancelled; an SR can be cancelled in the Transmission Time Interval (TTI) for which it receives a grant.; ¶ [0105] The UE receives a random access response (RAR) with a grant.).
Regarding claim 12, Pelletier teaches receiving from network configuration for selectively triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure (¶ [0077] The determination may be made based on configuration.; [0081] The scheduling request procedure may be triggered by a priority level. The priority may be assigned by means of a dedicated configuration.; ¶ [0106] The UE may transmit the SR on a UE-dedicated resource on the PUCCH (D-SR) if such a resource has been configured by RRC. Otherwise, the contention-free random-access procedure is utilized.).
Regarding claim 13, Pelletier teaches wherein the configuration for selectively triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure comprises one or more of (¶ [0106] If the priority of any of the LCHs passes the threshold, a passing indication is sent to an SR trigger. The UE may transmit the SR on a UE-dedicated resource on the PUCCH (D-SR). Otherwise, the contention-free random-access procedure (RA-SR) is utilized.):
an indicator indicating if the selective triggering is enabled or disabled at the terminal device (¶ [0077] The determination may be made either during a certain period of time or permanently (for example, based on configuration).; ¶ [0097] During a predetermined time period, an SR is triggered only if an LCH with data available for transmission has a priority higher than a predefined threshold.);
one or more indicators indicating if the selective triggering is enabled or disabled for one or more logical channels configured for the terminal device, respectively (¶ [0100] LCHs within an LCG are configured with no priority/priorities for the purpose of SR. LCH is not considered in the decision to trigger an SR.); and
one or more parameters to configure the predetermined condition (¶ [0097] Priority higher than a predefined threshold. Else an SR is not triggered during the predetermined time period.; ¶ [0098] The UE determines whether a predefined timing event has occurred.).
Regarding claim 14, Pelletier teaches determine that a condition for triggering the scheduling request procedure is satisfied before selectively triggering the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure (¶ [0080] Determining whether the priority level associated with the logical channel exceeds a predefined threshold. Upon determining that the priority level exceeds the predefined threshold, the mobile terminal performs a scheduling request procedure.; ¶ [0106] If the priority of any of the LCHs passes the threshold, a passing indication is sent to an SR trigger. The UE may transmit the SR on a UE-dedicated resource on the PUCCH (D-SR). Otherwise, the contention-free random access procedure (RA-SR) is utilized.).
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.
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 5, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG-RAN, August 2021, Discussion on remaining MAC issues for NR NTN (R2-2108115; hereinafter 3GPP).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Pelletier does not explicitly teach wherein selectively triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure based on a predetermined condition comprises: triggering the random access procedure or both the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure in a case where a radio link quality measurement for the terminal device is better than or equal to a second threshold; or triggering the scheduling request procedure in a case where the radio link quality measurement for the terminal device is worse than the second threshold.
In analogous art, 3GPP teaches wherein selectively triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure based on a predetermined condition (§ 2.5.1, Observation 9, The UE may selectively trigger one or both of 2-step RACH and SR-BSR procedure for an BSR, based on criteria such as 2-step RACH RSRP threshold.; Proposal 11, 2-step RACH can be selectively triggered for an BSR for LCH with valid PUCCH SR resources.)
comprises:
triggering the random access procedure or both the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure in a case where a radio link quality measurement for the terminal device is better than or equal to a second threshold (§ 2.5.2, If the RSRP is above this threshold (UEs having high channel quality), the UE will select 2-step RACH.); or
triggering the scheduling request procedure in a case where the radio link quality measurement for the terminal device is worse than the second threshold (MPEP 2143.03: When a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine UL scheduling enhancements on BSR reporting taught by 3GPP with priority based uplink scheduling as taught by Pelletier. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve uplink resource allocation efficiency and reduce transmission delay for higher-priority data, which improve system performance and reduce latency for delay-sensitive data, by using the priority information of logical channels to control when uplink transmission procedures are triggered in response to a buffer status report (3GPP: § 2.5).
Regarding claim 8, Pelletier does not explicitly teach wherein the random access procedure is a 2- step random access procedure.
In analogous art, 3GPP teaches wherein the random access procedure is a 2- step random access procedure (§ 2.5.2, The selection of 2-step RACH or 4-step RACH is performed. The UE will select 2-step RACH.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine UL scheduling enhancements on BSR reporting taught by 3GPP with priority based uplink scheduling as taught by Pelletier. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve uplink resource allocation efficiency and reduce transmission delay for higher-priority data, which improve system performance and reduce latency for delay-sensitive data, by using the priority information of logical channels to control when uplink transmission procedures are triggered in response to a buffer status report (3GPP: § 2.5).
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr et al. (US 2023/0217500 A1; hereinafter Loehr).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Pelletier does not explicitly teach wherein selectively triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure based on a predetermined condition comprises: triggering one of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure which has a transmission occasion earlier than the other.
In analogous art, Loehr teaches wherein selectively triggering one or both of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure based on a predetermined condition comprises: triggering one of the scheduling request procedure and the random access procedure which has a transmission occasion earlier than the other (¶ [0059] For the case that PRACH transmission overlaps in time with SR transmission on PUCCH, the UE transmits the SR on PUCCH and may optionally postpone the PRACH transmission until the next available PRACH resource.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine triggering the scheduling request and random access procedure taught by Loehr with priority based uplink scheduling as taught by Pelletier. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve system operation and improving responsiveness for high-priority data by selecting the most appropriate uplink access procedure for a given traffic condition by prioritizing uplink transmission based on logical channel priority and resource availability (Loehr: ¶¶ [0004]-[0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, and 21 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chin et al. (US 2021/0250989 A1) discloses “Wireless Communicating Method and User Equipment for Handling Random Access Operations”
Khoshkholgh Dashtaki et al. (US 2022/0377780 A1) “Scheduling Request in Non-Terrestrial Networks”
Kung et al. (US 2021/0400684 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Prioritization Between Uplink Data and Scheduling Request in a Wireless Communication System”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M KAYAL whose telephone number is (703)756-4576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/D.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464