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 amendment filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 25,27 and 31 have been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 21-34 are pending in this application, with claims 21 and 28 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/12/2026 on page 12
of applicant's remark regarding Claims 21,28, the applicant
argues that Nagano does not disclose the remaining time is based on a PDCP discard timer or the smallest value of time is indicated.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Nagano discloses delay info field which indicates remaining time before the expiry which is the smallest time left. The expiry of the permissible delay for data is considered as discard time. Nagano meets the concept of the claimed invention fully and clarity based on the claim language (Nagano Para[0190-192,0209]). The applicant has introduced terms “a smallest” and “PDCP” in the claimed invention without introducing those terms appropriately to relate in a manner to facilitate reasonable search. The broad interpretation of the claimed invention leads to an understanding of any data received from the higher layer processed at the MAC layer for a potential transmission with an expiry timer related to a LCG. The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on having a purpose of terms smallest and PDCP. Although the teachings of Pelletier are not identical to the claimed intention, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from Pelletier’s teaching. “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 22-27 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 21.
The dependent claims 29-34 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 28.
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)(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 21-23 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by NAGANO (US 2025/0185102 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Nagano”).
Regarding Claims 21 and 28, Nagano discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (Nagano Fig.5 Para[0077] A UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: generating a delay report medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for one or more logical channel groups (LCGs) (Nagano Fig.21 Para[0192,0209] A MAC-CE for delay BSR (i.e. delay report) is generated); and transmitting, to a base station (Nagano Fig.5 Para[0077] A base station), the delay report MAC CE (Nagano Fig.21 Para[0192,0209] A MAC-CE for delay BSR is transmitted), wherein the delay report MAC CE includes one or more LCG fields for the one or more LCGs (Nagano Fig.21 Para[0192,0209] LCG field in the delay BSR), one or more remaining time fields (Nagano Fig.21 Para[0192,0209] Delay info (i.e. remaining time) field in the delay BSR), and one or more buffer size fields (Nagano Fig.21 Para[0192,0209] Buffer size field in the delay BSR), wherein each LCG field of the one or more LCG fields indicates a presence of a remaining time field and a buffer size field for a corresponding LCG (Nagano Fig.21 Para[0192,0209] LCG field indicates presence of buffer size and delay info field), and wherein the remaining time field for the corresponding LCG indicates a smallest remaining time value (Nagano Fig.21 Para[0190-192,0209] Delay info field indicates remaining time before the expiry) of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discard timer among data units for the corresponding LCG (Nagano Fig.21 Para[0190-192,0209] The expiry of the permissible (i.e. discard) delay for data).
Specifically for claim 28, Nagano discloses the UE that includes a transceiver (Nagano Fig.9 A RF circuit (i.e. transceiver)), a processor (Nagano Fig.9 A processor) and a memory (Nagano Fig.9 A memory).
Regarding claims 22 and 29, Nagano discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 21. Nagano further discloses wherein the remaining time field for the corresponding LCG indicates the smallest remaining time value for the corresponding LCG at a time of a first transmission of the delay report MAC CE (Nagano Para[0196,0209] The delay information (i.e. remaining time) is determined when MAC CE is generated and transmitted).
Regarding claims 23 and 30, Nagano discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 21. Nagano further discloses wherein the smallest remaining time value is indicated by a unit of milliseconds (Nagano Para[0196,0209] The remaining time in milliseconds).
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 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Wang (US 2025/0071609 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claims 24 and 31, Nagano discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 21. Nagano does not explicitly disclose receiving, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message configuring a remaining time threshold for triggering a delay reporting for an LCG.
However, Wang from the same field of invention discloses receiving, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message configuring a remaining time threshold for triggering a delay reporting for an LCG (Wang Para[0065] The trigger threshold via RRC from the base station).
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 Nagano to have the feature of “receiving, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message configuring a remaining time threshold for triggering a delay reporting for an LCG” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been to enhance XR service (Wang Para[0007]).
Claims 25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Wang and Xiaomi (R2-2300422, hereinafter referred to as “Xiaomi”)-IDS.
Regarding claims 25 and 32, Nagano in view of Wang discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 21. Nagano in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the delay reporting is triggered, if the smallest remaining time value becomes less than the remaining time threshold.
However, Xiaomi from the same field of invention discloses wherein the delay reporting is triggered, if the smallest remaining time value becomes less than the remaining time threshold (Xiaomi Section:2.1 The PDB less than threshold triggers sending 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 Nagano and Wang to have the feature of “wherein the delay reporting is triggered, if the smallest remaining time value becomes less than the remaining time threshold.” as taught by Xiaomi. The motivation would have been to enhance UE feedback for XR capacity (Xiaomi Title).
Claims 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of WEI et al. (US 2024/0284249 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wei”).
Regarding claims 26 and 33, Nagano discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 21. Nagano does not explicitly disclose wherein the each LCG field of the one or more LCG fields indicates the presence of the remaining time field and the buffer size field for the corresponding LCG, by using a corresponding bit of a bitmap.
However, Wei from the same field of invention discloses wherein the each LCG field of the one or more LCG fields indicates the presence of the remaining time field and the buffer size field for the corresponding LCG, by using a corresponding bit of a bitmap (Wei Para[0100-0104] A bitmap is used to indicate presence of delay information and buffered data).
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 Nagano to have the feature of “wherein the each LCG field of the one or more LCG fields indicates the presence of the remaining time field and the buffer size field for the corresponding LCG, by using a corresponding bit of a bitmap” as taught by Wei. The motivation would have been to improve reliability by reporting data delay information (Wei Para[0003]).
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Cheng et al. (US 2024/0114385 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Cheng”).
Regarding claims 27 and 34, Nagano discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 21. Nagano does not explicitly disclose wherein, if an LCG is configured with an additional buffer size table, the delay report MAC CE further includes a buffer table field for the LCG, wherein the buffer table field indicates which buffer size table is used to set a buffer size field for the LCG.
However, Cheng from the same field of invention discloses wherein, if an LCG is configured with an additional buffer size table, the delay report MAC CE further includes a buffer table field for the LCG, wherein the buffer table field indicates which buffer size table is used to set a buffer size field for the LCG (Cheng Para[0072-74] The MAC CE or BSR indicates index of a new BSR table).
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 Nagano to have the feature of “wherein, if an LCG is configured with an additional buffer size table, the delay report MAC CE further includes a buffer table field for the LCG, wherein the buffer table field indicates which buffer size table is used to set a buffer size field for the LCG” as taught by Cheng. The motivation would have been to improve XR service using new BSR tables and trigger conditions (Cheng Para[0002]).
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