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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response filed on 06/04/2026 has been entered. No Claim has been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 1,9 and 17 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Interpretation 112(f) have been considered. The further information provided by the applicant has been added. The applicant has provided more supporting evidence that the corresponding structure for claims 17 is described in the specification in the following sections including, but not limited to, Figures 6-9 and paragraphs [0156-0188].
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/04/2026 on pages 7-8
of applicant's remark regarding Independent Claims, the applicant argues that Terry does not teach transmitting lifespan timer indication.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Terry discloses NDI to inform Node-B for buffer clearing which is an indirect indication of data being stale (Terry Para[0024-28]). The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on indication itself as the just mentioned indication of the expired time is interpreted broadly. It is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable... . [T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims—American Perspectives, 21 Int’! Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-8 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
The dependent claims 10-16 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 9.
The dependent claims 18-20 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1,4,9,12,17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Terry (US 2017/0134147 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Terry”).
Regarding Claims 1,9 and 17, Terry discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication and method, comprising: one or more memories (Terry Fig.1 Para[0017] A memory (i.e. controller)) storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors (Terry Fig.1 Para[0017] A processor (i.e. controller)) coupled with the one or more memories and operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine an expiration time of an uplink transport block (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-25] A lifespan timer (i.e. expiration timer) for data transmission); transmit an indication of the expiration time of the uplink transport block (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-25] The WTRU sends indication via NDI when the Node-B needs to clear the buffer); transmit the uplink transport block (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-26] The WTRU transmits transport blocks); determine an expiration of the indicated expiration time (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-28] The lifespan timer is checked and is expired); and refrain from retransmitting the uplink transport block based at least in part on the determined expiration (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-29] When the lifespan timer is expired, the WTRU discards data and releases HARQ process (i.e. no retransmission)).
Regarding claims 4,12 and 20, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry further discloses receive an uplink retransmission grant for the uplink transport block; and transmit at least a portion of the uplink transport block based on the received uplink retransmission grant and prior to the expiration of the indicated expiration time (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-29] The physical resources are assigned (i.e. UL grant) for retransmission and the WTRU sends data till the lifespan timer expires).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 2-3,10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of OH et al. (US 2021/0168849 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Oh”).
Regarding claims 2,10 and 18, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the expiration time is determined with respect to one or more of: an ending symbol of a service request (SR) message, or an end of a physical uplink shared channel transmission containing the uplink transport block.
However, Oh from the same field of invention discloses wherein the expiration time is determined with respect to one or more of: an ending symbol of a service request (SR) message (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or an end of a physical uplink shared channel transmission containing the uplink transport block (Oh Para[0180,0223] A PUSCH transmission end symbol is utilized to determine time resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the expiration time is determined with respect to one or more of: an ending symbol of a service request (SR) message, or an end of a physical uplink shared channel transmission containing the uplink transport block” as taught by Oh. The motivation would have been to efficiently allocate resources (Oh Para[0001]).
Regarding claims 3,11 and 19, Terry in view of Oh discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Terry further discloses configure a new data indicator (NDI) associated with the uplink transport block to further indicate the expiration time; and transmit the NDI (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-25] The WTRU sends indication via NDI when the Node-B needs to clear the buffer).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of SAKODA et al. (US 2016/0205609 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Sakoda”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the expiration time comprises an index to a table of standard expiration time values.
However, Sakoda from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the expiration time comprises an index to a table of standard expiration time values (Sakoda Para[0147] An index for a record in a table containing exptime is provided).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the expiration time comprises an index to a table of standard expiration time values” as taught by Sakoda. The motivation would have been to properly generate and manage communication path (Sakoda Para[0007]).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of MOON et al. (US 2018/0049227 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Moon”).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted as a multi-bit service request (SR).
However, Moon from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted as a multi-bit service request (SR) (Moon Para[0184,0203-204] The scheduling request contains multiple bits for buffer status and latency requirement)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted as a multi-bit service request (SR)” as taught by Moon. The motivation would have been to reduce uplink data delay (Moon Para[0017]).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of Shaheen et al. (WO 2018/232034Al, hereinafter referred to as “Shaheen”).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted over a grant-free uplink data channel, and wherein the indication of the expiration time is separately encoded with uplink data.
However, Shaheen from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted over a grant-free uplink data channel, and wherein the indication of the expiration time is separately encoded with uplink data (Shaheen Para[0060] A grant-free resource for UL is used to send fast BSR report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted over a grant-free uplink data channel, and wherein the indication of the expiration time is separately encoded with uplink data” as taught by Shaheen. The motivation would have been to enhance scheduling request (Shaheen Para[0002]).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of FAN et al. (US 2020/0374888 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Fan”).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted in a buffer status report (BSR) message.
However, Fan from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted in a buffer status report (BSR) message (Fan Para[0139] A remaining time information is in the BSR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted in a buffer status report (BSR) message” as taught by Fan. The motivation would have been to ensure service data transmission for high reliability and low latency (Fan Para[0005]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights