DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The instant first office action is in response to communication filed on 08/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, 8 and 15 are the base independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant alleged that the system of “Rao’515”fails to show or merely suggest “determining, based on the at least one condition being met-evaluation, if-that the second LCP setting is to be applied to generate a second MAC PDU when processing a second PUSCH opportunity of the plurality of PUSCH opportunities” as recited by applicant on page “7 of 10”.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because in this case, the system of “Rao’515” explicitly teaches the above limitation.
Rao’515 discloses determining, based on the at least one condition being met(i.e. time duration and/or certain configured events as condition), if the second LCP setting is to be applied(see para.0135, which discusses whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events (e.g., surge in number of PDUs/data with high QoS requirements), fall back/default LCP configurations, see para.0151) to generate a second MAC PDU(see para.0151, which discusses the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied at different layers…the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following:.. MAC: LCH parameters (e.g., priority, PBR, BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level), LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy)…, see para.0124, The WTRU may send the information/indications associated with multi-PUSCH CG to network via, for example, one or more of the following message types:… UL MAC CE (e.g., new MAC CE, regular BSR, periodic BSR, padding BSR, enhanced BSR, pre-emptive BSR, delay status report (DSR) which may include remaining delay information and/or amount of time elapsed since data arrival in buffer, elastic BSR which may be scalable/adjustable by sending subsequent indications, possibly without cancelling an earlier BSR), see abs & see para.0006, which discusses the WTRU… sends PDUs of the PDU set using resources in the activated FDRA sub-config and CG PUSCH occasions, see para.0050, which discusses medium Access Control (MAC), see para.0135, thus generate MAC relate to BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level)when processing a second PUSCH opportunity of the plurality of PUSCH opportunities(see abs, which discusses A WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities… per CG period/cycle, see para.0153, which discusses the WTRU may receive validity information associated with the resource configurations (e.g., multi-PUSCH CG configurations, CG periods, CG slots, set of PUSCH occasions) indicating whether/when the configurations may be considered to be valid or invalid, based on one or more of triggering events/condition , see para.0170, which discusses with respect to change of configuration(s) at the WTRU, the WTRU may be triggered to perform any of WTRU action(s) when determining a change to a mapping configuration, forwarding configuration and/or resource configuration, including changing at least one of the parameters at the mapping configuration (e.g., mapping a QoS flow to a new forwarding configuration), changing parameters of DRB/LCHs (e.g., priority, PDB, PBR), changing LCP configuration (e.g., updates to LCP rules or restrictions), changing QoS of data units (e.g., PSDB, PSER, PSIHI), see para.0135, which discusses , thus second PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions/opportunities include one and more).
Thus, the claimed limitation is met.
The Applicant further argued, see page 8 of 10, “Even assuming arguendo that this disclosure means that an LCP configuration can be conditionally selected or changed, Rao does not disclose evaluating such an event after applying a first LCP setting to a first PUSCH opportunity, and based on the event being detected, determining whether a second LCP setting should be applied to generate a second MAC PDU when processing a second PUSCH opportunity”.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because in this case, the system of “Rao’515” explicitly teaches the above limitation.
The previous argument is still applied. Then Rao’515 teaches evaluating whether at least one condition(see para.0151, which discuses evaluate time duration as condition, see para.0135, which discusses when detecting certain configured events as condition) for switching from the first LCP setting to a second LCP setting is met(see para.0151, which discusses time duration for changing/switching between different LCP rules/policy, see para.0135, whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events, thus when detecting time duration and/or certain configured events, another/second LCP configuration is applied).
The Applicant further argued, see page 8 of 10, “In addition, the NFOA has not provided a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that determining that a second LCP setting is to be applied to generate a second MAC PDU when processing a second PUSCH opportunity based on at least one condition being met necessarily flows from Rao's discussion of conditional LCP configurations. See MPEP § 2112(IV) (quoting Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990))”
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because in this case, the system of “Rao’515” explicitly teaches the above limitation.
The previous response is still applied here. Then Rao’515 teaches evaluating whether at least one condition(see para.0151, which discuses evaluate time duration as condition, see para.0135, which discusses when detecting certain configured events as condition) for switching from the first LCP setting to a second LCP setting is met(see para.0151, which discusses time duration for changing/switching between different LCP rules/policy, see para.0135, whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events, thus when detecting time duration and/or certain configured events, another/second LCP configuration is applied). Thus, the reason to apply conditional/second/another LCP configurations applicable is when detecting certain configured events and/or time duration as condition.
The Applicant further argued, see page 8 of 10, “Furthermore, the cited portions in Rao do not disclose the recited generation of first and second MAC PDUs”.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because in this case, the system of “Rao’515” explicitly teaches the above limitation.
Rao’515 teaches, see the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied at different layers of AS protocol stack (e.g., RRC, SDAP, PDCP, RLC, MAC, PHY or any new layer). The configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following: RLC: whether AM/UM/TM is to be applied and parameters associated with AM/UM/TM operation; MAC: LCH parameters (e.g., priority, PBR, BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level), LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy), and/or configurations for multiplexing/assembly/reordering; and/or SDAP/PDCP: 1 -to-1 , 1-to-M or N-to-M mapping configurations, markings/indications/IDs to apply (e.g., associated with handling QoS flows, PDU sets, data busts, association information between PDU sets and data bursts), range of values associated with importance/priority information to identify in the PDUs/PDU sets, see para.0135, LCP configuration: for example, the WTRU may indicate the updated LCP rules/restrictions (e.g., restrictions associated with mapping from DRB/LCHs to resource grants or CG) that may be applied for a set of forwarding/resource configurations (e.g., CG), whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events (e.g., surge in number of PDUs/data with high QoS requirements), fall back/default LCP configurations. Thus, since WTRU may receive one or more configurations and sets of parameters to be applied, where the sets of parameters associated with generated MAC and the configurations associated with LCP LCP configurations, Rao’515, in fact, teaches generation of first and second MAC PDUs.
The Applicant further argued, see page 8 of 10, In summary, there is no focused and specific example in Rao of applying a first LCP setting when processing a first PUSCH opportunity and then determining to switch to a second LCP setting to generate a second MAC PDU when processing a second PUSCH opportunity based on a determination that at least one condition for switching from the first LCP setting to the second LCP setting has been met. Because Rao does not disclose each element of claim 1 arranged as recited by claim 1, Rao does not anticipate claim 1”.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because in this case, the system of “Rao’515” explicitly teaches the above limitation.
The previous response is still applied here. Rao’515 teaches applying a first logical channel prioritization (LCP) setting(see para.0151, which discusses the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied… the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following: LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy), see para.0135, which discusses whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events (e.g., surge in number of PDUs/data with high QoS requirements), fall back/default LCP configurations, thus first logical channel prioritization (LCP) since LCP configurations includes one and more or fall back/default LCP configurations), when processing a first PUSCH opportunity of the plurality of PUSCH opportunities(see abs, which discusses a WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities… per CG period/cycle, thus first PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions/opportunities include one and more). Based on the above, the claimed limitation is met.
Regarding claim 8, the same argument as claim 1 is also applied to claim 8 since claim 8 recited similar features as claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 9-14, the same argument as independent claim 1 is also applied to claims 2-7 and 9-14 since claims 2-7 and 9-14 are each depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 as discussed above.
Please, see the Conclusion, for additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In view of the above, it is clear the previously cited prior arts still disclose the applicant claim invention as set detailed in the rejection below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 10 -12 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rao (WO 2024211515 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rao’515 discloses a method comprising:
processing a plurality of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) opportunities associated with a configured grant (CG) cycle(see abs, which discusses a WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities… per CG period/cycle);
applying a first logical channel prioritization (LCP) setting(see para.0151, which discusses the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied… the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following: LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy), thus first logical channel prioritization (LCP) since LCP configurations includes one and more), when processing a first PUSCH opportunity of the plurality of PUSCH opportunities(see abs, which discusses a WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities… per CG period/cycle, thus first PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions/opportunities include one and more), to generate a first medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU)(see para.0091 & para.0151, which discusses the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied at different layers…the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following:.. MAC: LCH parameters (e.g., priority, PBR, BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level), LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy)…, see para.0124, The WTRU may send the information/indications associated with multi-PUSCH CG to network via, for example, one or more of the following message types:… UL MAC CE (e.g., new MAC CE, regular BSR, periodic BSR, padding BSR, enhanced BSR, pre-emptive BSR, delay status report (DSR) which may include remaining delay information and/or amount of time elapsed since data arrival in buffer, elastic BSR which may be scalable/adjustable by sending subsequent indications, possibly without cancelling an earlier BSR), see abs & see para.0006, which discusses the WTRU… sends PDUs of the PDU set using resources in the activated FDRA sub-config and CG PUSCH occasions, see para.0050, which discusses medium Access Control (MAC), thus generate MAC relate to BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level);
evaluating whether at least one condition(see para.0151, which discuses evaluate time duration as condition, see para.0135, which discusses when detecting certain configured events as condition) for switching from the first LCP setting to a second LCP setting is met(see para.0151, which discusses time duration for changing/switching between different LCP rules/policy, see para.0135, whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events, thus time duration and/or certain configured events as condition); and
determining, based on the at least one condition being met(i.e. time duration and/or certain configured events as condition), if the second LCP setting is to be applied(see para.0135, which discusses whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events (e.g., surge in number of PDUs/data with high QoS requirements), fall back/default LCP configurations, see para.0151) to generate a second MAC PDU(see para.0151, which discusses the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied at different layers…the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following:.. MAC: LCH parameters (e.g., priority, PBR, BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level), LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy)…, see para.0124, The WTRU may send the information/indications associated with multi-PUSCH CG to network via, for example, one or more of the following message types:… UL MAC CE (e.g., new MAC CE, regular BSR, periodic BSR, padding BSR, enhanced BSR, pre-emptive BSR, delay status report (DSR) which may include remaining delay information and/or amount of time elapsed since data arrival in buffer, elastic BSR which may be scalable/adjustable by sending subsequent indications, possibly without cancelling an earlier BSR), see abs & see para.0006, which discusses the WTRU… sends PDUs of the PDU set using resources in the activated FDRA sub-config and CG PUSCH occasions, thus generate MAC relate to BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level)when processing a second PUSCH opportunity of the plurality of PUSCH opportunities(see abs, which discusses A WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities… per CG period/cycle, see para.0153, see para.0170, which discusses , thus second PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions/opportunities include one and more).
Regarding claim 2, Rao’515 discloses wherein the first LCP setting includes a mapping restriction of a logical channel (LCH), a priority of the LCH, a prioritized bit rate (PBR) of the LCH, or a bucket size duration (BSD) of the LCH(see para.0114, which discusses upon mapping, a set of parameters (e.g., priority, PBR, BSD) and/or configurations (e.g., LCP restrictions) may be applied…, see para.0115, which discusses associated LCH parameters (e.g., PBR, BSD, priority) ).
Regarding claim 7, Rao’515 discloses wherein the first LCP setting is a default LCP setting(see para.0135, which discuses default LCP configuraton(s)/setting).
Regarding claim 8, Rao’515 discloses an apparatus comprising:
memory(see para.0027, which discusses memory 130-132, see fig.1B) to store information related to a plurality of PUSCH opportunities(see para.0032, which discusses store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory 130 and/or the removable memory 132, see abs, which discusses a WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration);
processing circuitry, coupled with the memory, to(see fig.1B, which shows processor 118 couple to memory 130-132):
process a plurality of PUSCH opportunities associated with a configured grant (CG) cycle(see abs, which discusses a WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities… per CG period/cycle);
apply a first logical channel prioritization (LCP) setting(see para.0151, which discusses the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied… the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following: LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy), thus first logical channel prioritization (LCP) since LCP configurations includes one and more), when processing a first PUSCH opportunity of the plurality of PUSCH opportunities(see abs, which discusses a WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities… per CG period/cycle, thus first PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions/opportunities include one and more), to generate a first medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (see para.0151, which discusses the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied at different layers…the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following:.. MAC: LCH parameters (e.g., priority, PBR, BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level), LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy)…, see para.0124, The WTRU may send the information/indications associated with multi-PUSCH CG to network via, for example, one or more of the following message types:… UL MAC CE (e.g., new MAC CE, regular BSR, periodic BSR, padding BSR, enhanced BSR, pre-emptive BSR, delay status report (DSR) which may include remaining delay information and/or amount of time elapsed since data arrival in buffer, elastic BSR which may be scalable/adjustable by sending subsequent indications, possibly without cancelling an earlier BSR), see abs & see para.0006, which discusses the WTRU… sends PDUs of the PDU set using resources in the activated FDRA sub-config and CG PUSCH occasions, thus generate MAC relate to BSD for PDU and/or PDU set level);
determine to switch from the first LCP setting to a second LCP setting(see para.0151, which discusses time duration for changing/switching between different LCP rules/policy, see para.0135, whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events, thus determine condition to switch) for a second PUSCH opportunity(see abs, which discusses A WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities… per CG period/cycle, thus second PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions/opportunities include one and more) based on the at least one condition (i.e. time duration and/or certain configured events as condition) for switching from the first LCP setting to the second LCP setting is met (see para.0135, which discusses whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events (e.g., surge in number of PDUs/data with high QoS requirements), fall back/default LCP configurations, see para.0151, which discusses the WTRU may receive one or more configurations and/or sets of parameters to be applied… the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following: LCP configurations (e.g., rules/restrictions/policy for PDU and/or PDU set level handling, time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy); and
switch from the first LCP setting to the second LCP setting (see para.0135, which discusses whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events (e.g., surge in number of PDUs/data with high QoS requirements), fall back/default LCP configurations) for processing the second PUSCH opportunity (see abs, which discusses A WTRU receives configuration information comprising at least one multi-PUSCH CG configuration and one or more FDRA sub-configurations and parameters associated with the sub-configuration, see para.0093, which discusses multi-PUSCH CG, may correspond to one or more configured resources or configured grant (CG) configurations, where each CG configuration may consist of a set of consecutive or non-consecutive PUSCH occasions/opportunities…)based on the determination(see para.0151, which discusses time duration for changing/switching between different LCP rules/policy, see para.0135, whether such LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events).
Regarding claim 9, Rao’515 discloses wherein the determination is based on a base station(see para.0087, which discusses the network may include any of a base station (e.g., gNB, TRP, RAN node, access node) configuring the UE to apply the first LCP setting (see para.0114, which discusses…configurations/settings (e.g., LCP restrictions) may be applied…, thus first LCP setting since configurations includes one and more) for the first PUSCH opportunity(see para.0135, which discusses the WTRU may indicate the updated LCP rules/restrictions (e.g., restrictions associated with mapping from DRB/LCHs to resource grants or CG) that may be applied for a set of forwarding/resource configurations, see para.0134, which discusses CG resources (e.g., PUSCH occasions/opportunities or slots), thus first PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions includes one and more PUSCH opportunities) and to apply a second LCP setting(see para.0114, which discusses…configurations/settings (e.g., LCP restrictions) may be applied…, thus second LCP setting since configurations includes one and more) for the second PUSCH opportunity(see para.0135, which discusses the WTRU may indicate the updated LCP rules/restrictions (e.g., restrictions associated with mapping from DRB/LCHs to resource grants or CG) that may be applied for a set of forwarding/resource configurations, see para.0134, which discusses CG resources (e.g., PUSCH occasions/opportunities or slots), thus second PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions includes one and more PUSCH opportunities).
Regarding claim 13, Rao’515 discloses wherein the determination to switch from the first LCP setting to a second LCP setting(see para.0151, which discusses the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following:…time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy, see para.0135, which discusses LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events ) for the second PUSCH opportunity (see para.0135, which discusses the WTRU may indicate the updated LCP rules/restrictions (e.g., restrictions associated with mapping from DRB/LCHs to resource grants or CG) that may be applied for a set of forwarding/resource configurations, see para.0134, which discusses CG resources (e.g., PUSCH occasions/opportunities or slots), thus second PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions includes one and more PUSCH opportunities) is based on a buffer storing less than a threshold amount of data(see para.0154, see para.0169, which discusses Other buffer status metrics that may be monitored for determining the expected QoS include the number of data units buffered which may be below a configured threshold in one or more associated forwarding configurations, see para.0135).
Regarding claim 14, Rao’515 discloses wherein the determination to switch from the first LCP setting to a second LCP setting(see para.0151, which discusses the configurations parameters to be applied at different layers may include, for example, one or more of the following:…time duration for changing between different LCP rules/policy, see para.0135, which discusses LCP rules/restrictions may be temporarily changed for a time duration, conditional LCP configurations applicable when detecting certain configured events ) for the second PUSCH opportunity (see para.0135, which discusses the WTRU may indicate the updated LCP rules/restrictions (e.g., restrictions associated with mapping from DRB/LCHs to resource grants or CG) that may be applied for a set of forwarding/resource configurations, see para.0134, which discusses CG resources (e.g., PUSCH occasions/opportunities or slots), thus second PUSCH opportunity since PUSCH occasions includes one and more PUSCH opportunities) is based on a buffer storing greater than a threshold amount of data (see para.0154, see para.0169, which discusses Other buffer status metrics that may be monitored for determining the expected QoS include the number of data units buffered which may be above a configured threshold in one or more associated forwarding configurations, see para.0135).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (WO 2024211515 A1) and in view of Wang (US 20220417963).
Regarding claim 3, Rao’515 discloses wherein the LCH is configured with a radio resource control (RRC) parameter(see ara.0111, which discusses transmitting/forwarding of information/indications may comprise receiving configuration, including receiving RRC configuration from gNB).
As discussed above, although Rao’515 discloses RRC configuration (see para.0111), Rao’515 does not explicitly show the use of “wherein the RRC parameter includes an allowed configured grant (AllowedCG) list” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “wherein the RRC parameter includes an allowed configured grant (AllowedCG) list” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Wang’963.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Wang’963 teaches the use of wherein the RRC parameter includes an allowed configured grant (AllowedCG) list(see para.0079, which discusses the parameter “allowedConfiguredGrants-List” is added to the LogicalChannelConfigIE… if the allowedConfiguredGrants-List includes identifier “CG-Config-1,” this the logical channel will be mapped to the ConfiguredGrantConfigIE that contains “CG-Config-1” in the identifier parameter of the ConfiguredGrantConfigIE).
In view of the above, having the system of Rao’515 and then given the well-established teaching of Wang’963, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rao’515 to include “wherein the RRC parameter includes an allowed configured grant (AllowedCG) list” as taught by Wang’963, since Wang’963 stated in para.0028+ that such a modification would provide system for enhancing reliability and reducing latency.
Regarding claim 4, Rao’515 discloses wherein the second LCP setting indicates that the first LCH and a second LCH are allowed to be mapped to the CG(see para.0102, which discusses the WTRU may have visibility of the data units and determine the corresponding actions (e.g., perform prioritization per LCP, perform mapping to restricted CG configurations, CG periods or CG PUSCH occasions) based on the configured restrictions associated with the one or more sublayers, radio bearers and/or LCHs to which the data units may be mapped to, see para.0135,which discusses LCP configuration(s), thus LCHs includes at least first and second LCH are mapped to the CG).
As discussed above, although Rao’515 discloses he second LCP setting indicates that the first LCH and a second LCH are allowed to be mapped to the CG(Rao’515, see para.0102, which discusses the WTRU may have visibility of the data units and determine the corresponding actions (e.g., perform prioritization per LCP, perform mapping to restricted CG configurations, CG periods or CG PUSCH occasions) based on the configured restrictions associated with the one or more sublayers, radio bearers and/or LCHs to which the data units may be mapped to, see para.0135,which discusses LCP configuration(s), thus LCHs includes at least first and second LCH are mapped to the CG), Rao’515 does not explicitly show the use of “wherein the first LCP setting indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “wherein the first LCP setting indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Wang’963.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Wang’963 teaches the use of wherein the first LCP setting indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG(see fig.4A, see para.0108, which shows and discusses the message comprises: i) logical channel, LCH, information identifying a LCH and ii) configured grant, CG, information identifying at least one CG configuration to which the LCH is mapped, see para.0087, which discusses for each LCH mapped to one or multiple CG configurations, the RRC layer may control the LCP procedure by configuring mapping restrictions for each logical channel, thus LCP setting/procedure configured indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG, see fig.4, mapping a CG config to a set of one or more LCHs).
In view of the above, having the system of Rao’515 and then given the well-established teaching of Wang’963, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rao’515 to include “wherein the first LCP setting indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG” as taught by Wang’963, since Wang’963 stated in para.0028+ that such a modification would provide system for enhancing reliability and reducing latency.
Regarding claim 5, Rao’515 disclose wherein the second LCP setting indicates all LCHs are mapped to the CG(see para.0102, which discusses the WTRU may have visibility of the data units and determine the corresponding actions (e.g., perform prioritization per LCP, perform mapping to restricted CG configurations, CG periods or CG PUSCH occasions) based on the configured restrictions associated with the one or more sublayers, radio bearers and/or LCHs to which the data units may be mapped to, see para.0135,which discusses LCP configuration(s), thus all LCHs are mapped to the CG).
As discussed above, although Rao’515 discloses he second LCP setting indicates that the first LCH and a second LCH are allowed to be mapped to the CG(Rao’515, see para.0102, which discusses the WTRU may have visibility of the data units and determine the corresponding actions (e.g., perform prioritization per LCP, perform mapping to restricted CG configurations, CG periods or CG PUSCH occasions) based on the configured restrictions associated with the one or more sublayers, radio bearers and/or LCHs to which the data units may be mapped to, see para.0135,which discusses LCP configuration(s), thus LCHs are mapped to the CG), Rao’515 does not explicitly show the use of “the first LCP setting indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “the first LCP setting indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Wang’963.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Wang’963 teaches the use of w the first LCP setting indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG (see fig.4A, see para.0108, which shows and discusses the message comprises: i) logical channel, LCH, information identifying a LCH and ii) configured grant, CG, information identifying at least one CG configuration to which the LCH is mapped, see para.0087, which discusses for each LCH mapped to one or multiple CG configurations, the RRC layer may control the LCP procedure by configuring mapping restrictions for each logical channel, thus LCP setting/procedure configured indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG, see fig.4, mapping a CG config to a set of one or more LCHs).
In view of the above, having the system of Rao’515 and then given the well-established teaching of Wang’963, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rao’515 to include “the first LCP setting indicates that only a first LCH is allowed to be mapped to the CG” as taught by Wang’963, since Wang’963 stated in para.0028+ that such a modification would provide system for enhancing reliability and reducing latency.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (WO 2024211515 A1) and in view of ZHAO (EP 4554297).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, although Rao’515 discloses parameters associated with logical channel prioritization (LCP) (e.g., priority) (see para.0091 & see para.0114), Rao’515 does not explicitly show the use of “wherein the first LCP setting indicates that a priority of a first LCH is set to be higher than a priority of a second LCH, and wherein the second LCP setting indicates that the priority of the second LCH is set to be higher than the priority of the first LCH” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “wherein the first LCP setting indicates that a priority of a first LCH is set to be higher than a priority of a second LCH, and wherein the second LCP setting indicates that the priority of the second LCH is set to be higher than the priority of the first LCH” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by ZHAO’297.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, ZHAO’297 teaches the use of wherein the first LCP setting indicates that a priority of a first LCH is set to be higher than a priority of a second LCH(see para.0015, which discusses in the case where the priority of the first LCP procedure as first LCP setting is higher than the priority of the second LCP procedure as second LCP setting, allocating resources to the logical channels using the first LCP procedure according to the first LCP procedure preferentially; when there are remaining resources, further allocating resources to the logical channels using the second LCP procedure according to the second LCP procedure, thus the first LCP setting indicates that a priority of a first LCH), and wherein the second LCP setting indicates that the priority of the second LCH is set to be higher than the priority of the first LCH (see para.0015, which discusses in the case where the priority of the second LCP procedure is higher than the priority of the first LCP procedure, allocating resources to the logical channels using the second LCP procedure according to the second LCP procedure preferentially, performing the first round of resource allocation based on PBR in a descending order of the logical channel priority; when there are remaining resources after the first round of resource allocation, further allocating the resources to the logical channel using the first LCP procedure according to the first LCP procedure; if there are still remaining resources or in the case where the priority of the second LCP procedure is higher than the priority of the first LCP procedure, allocating resources to the logical channels using the second LCP procedure, performing the first round of resource allocation and the second round of resource allocation according to the second LCP procedure; if there are remaining resources after the second round of resource allocation, allocating resources to the logical channels using the first LCP procedure according to the first LCP procedure, thus second LCP setting indicates that the priority of the second LCH).
In view of the above, having the system of Rao’515 and then given the well-established teaching of ZHAO’297, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rao’515 to include “wherein the first LCP setting indicates that a priority of a first LCH is set to be higher than a priority of a second LCH, and wherein the second LCP setting indicates that the priority of the second LCH is set to be higher than the priority of the first LCH” as taught by ZHAO’297, since ZHAO’297 stated in para.0005+ that such a modification would provide improved system for allocating resources for a PDU set.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Following prior arts are related to the present claimed invention:
Fu et al (US 20240267335) teaches, see para.0070, performing LCP procedure may include performing a first LCP procedure, and/or, modifying or adjusting the LCP procedure, such that the associated ADUs are included in the allocated first uplink grant resource. The performing the first LCP procedure, and/or, modifying or adjusting the LCP procedure may be a temporary modification, where the original LCP procedure is subsequently reverted to; or, it may be a modification, where the new LCP procedure is continued to use, see para.0071, The generating a MAC PDU may include using a first MAC PDU generating rule, and/or, modifying or adjusting the MAC PDU generating rule, such that the associated ADUs are included in the allocated first uplink grant resource, see para.0105, the terminal device performs LCP procedure and/or generates a MAC PDU when a second condition is met; i.e., performs a second LCP procedure, and/or, modifies or adjusts the LCP procedure, or, uses a second MAC PDU generating rule, and/or, modifies or adjusts the MAC PDU generating rule. The second condition may include at least one of the following: the size of the first uplink grant resource is less than the size of an associated packet; the MAC PDU does not include all the data of the associated packet; the MAC PDU does not include remaining data or to-be-transmitted data of the associated packet; the MAC PDU does not include the remaining data or the to-be-transmitted data of the associated packet, and the associated ADUs do not meet a transmission delay or a PDB requirement.
Lohr et al (US 2024/0284500) teaches, see abs, receive a set of consecutive PUSCH resource allocations and generate MAC PDUs according to the received set of consecutive PUSCH resource allocations by applying a first logical channel restriction configuration during a LCP procedure for generation of a first set of MAC PDUs associated with a first subset of consecutive PUSCH resource allocations of the set of consecutive PUSCH resource allocations and applying a second logical channel restriction configuration for generation of a second set of MAC PDUs associated with a second subset of consecutive PUSCH resource allocations of the set of consecutive PUSCH resource allocations.
Chin et al (US 2020/0053820) teaches, see fig.2, generation of MAC #1 and 2 with PUSCH # 1 and 2, see fig.3, apply first LCP and second LCP to generate first and second MAC PDU 341 AND 342.
Kanamarlapudi et al (US 2021/0329620) teaches, see at lest fig.4, Apply first LCP and second LCP to generate first and second MAC PDU 413 and 423.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINNCELAS LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5138. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/VINNCELAS LOUIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
