ETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-03-02 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 14-16, 18-21, 23 are pending for consideration.
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
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.
(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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over LI_092 (US20230354092)
Claim(s) 14, 19
LI_092 teaches
generating a buffer status report (BSR); and transmitting, to a base station, the BSR, BSR reporting mechanism includes generating and transmitting a BSR to a IAB node. <FIG(s). 5; para. 0023, 0082-0092>.
wherein the BSR comprises two octets including BSR format includes two or more octets <FIG(s). 4; para. 0017-0020>.
a logical channel group (LCG) identifier (ID) field and BST format includes a LCG ID field within the octets <FIG(s). 4; para. 0017-0020>.
a Buffer Size Field, BST format includes buffer size field within the octets <FIG(s). 4; para. 0017-0020>.
wherein the Buffer Size Field indicates a total amount of data available for transmission associated with an LCG identified based on the LCG ID field, and buffer size field is used to identify a total data volume to be transmitted across all logical channels of a logical channel group <FIG(s). 4; para. 0017-0020>.
wherein an extended logical channel ID (eLCID) is used to identify a format of the BSR. Extended logical channel identity (eLCID) may be used to identify whether the first buffer status report MAC CE is a buffer status report MAC CE or a truncated buffer status report MAC CE. The different types of buffer reports can be considered a format. <para. 0103>.
Claim(s) 15, 20
LI_092 teaches
wherein the LCG ID field has a length of 8 bits and the Buffer Size Field has a length of 8 bits. A length of the information on the logical channel group is 4-8 bits and a length of the buffer size information, i.e. the buffer size field, is 1 byte, i.e. 8 bits. <para. 0147>.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE_029 (US20200205029) in view of LI_092 (US20230354092)
Claim(s) 16, 21
LEE_029 teaches
generating a buffer status report (BSR); and transmitting, to a base station, the BSR, UE or IAB node, generates a BSR MAC CE and transmits it to a network node which can be embodied as a base station. <FIG(s). 12, 15; para. 0061, 0255-0261, 0291-0295>.
wherein the BSR comprises:
an LCG field comprising two octets for indicating whether or not each LCG within a set of 16 LCGs has data available for transmission; and BSR format can includes multkiple octets, each octet representing multiple LCGs, e.g., 8 per octet. For example, FIG. 13(b) illustrates a case when only octets including LCG field for LCG0 to LCG7 and LCG24 to LCG 31 are present in the BSR MAC CE because at least one of the LCG among LCG0 to LCG7 and at least one of the LCG among LCG24 to LCG 31 have data available for transmission whereas no LCG among LCG8 to LCG15, and LCG16 to LCG 23 has data available for transmission. <FIG(s). 13a, 13b, 13c; para. 0266-0268, 0279-0282>.
Buffer Size Fields, each Buffer Size Field comprising one octet and indicating a total amount of data available for transmission associated with a respective LCG indicated in the LCG field, Buffer size fields 1-m correspond to a respective LCG in the BSR. <FIG(s). 13a, 13b, 13c; para. 0266-0268, 0279-0282>.
LEE_029 does not explicitly teach
wherein an extended logical channel ID (eLCID) is used to identify a format of the BSR.
However in a similar endeavor, LI_092 teaches
wherein an extended logical channel ID (eLCID) is used to identify a format of the BSR. Extended logical channel identity (eLCID) may be used to identify whether the first buffer status report MAC CE is a buffer status report MAC CE or a truncated buffer status report MAC CE. The different types of buffer reports can be considered a format. <para. 0103>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by LEE_029 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LI_092. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved buffer status reporting techniques for logical channel groups <para. 0035>.
Claim(s) 18, 23
LEE_029 teaches
wherein the network entity is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, and wherein a format of the BSR is supported by the IAB node AB node, generates a BSR MAC CE, using compliant format, and transmits it to a network node which can be embodied as a base station. <FIG(s). 12, 15; para. 0061, 0255-0261, 0291-0295>.
Response to Arguments
The following arguments in the Reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The applicant did not incorporate allowable dependent claims 17 and 22 into independent but rather amended some variant that has a patently distinct scope and made an assumption that the variant was also allowable simply because it has some similarities to the original claim 17, 22.
As indicated in the previous action, the Examiner specifically warned the applicant:
In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter).
It appears the applicant did not to check whether their variant amendments were still allowable (at a minimum allowable over the art of record) and did not provide any details or specific arguments as to why their amendments overcome the art of record. Consequently, the prior art rejections herein show the independent claims, which were not amended with allowable subject matter, are indeed not allowable.
The Examiner advises, for future amendments, that if amendments that do not actually rewrite the allowable, dependent claims in independent form, to treat them as typical amendments and provide arguments and analysis in compliance with, e.g., 37 CFR § 1.111.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights