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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 04/04/2024.
Claims 21-34 are pending in this application, with claims 21 and 28 being independent.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 31, line 1, “. . the instructions further cause” should read “. . the instructions when executed by the processor further cause”
In claim 25, line 1, “if” should read “when”
In claim 27, line 1, “if” should read “when”
Appropriate correction is required.
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).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0386240 to Xu
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/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 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