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
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on June 30, 2026.
Claims 1,2,12,13,and 20 have been amended.
Claims 10,11,19 have been cancelled.
No Claims have been added.
Claims 1-9,12-18, and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed June 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2,5-7,9-13,15-16, and 18-20 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kuo et al. (US Application 2025/0317807, hereinafter Kuo) which discloses wherein the LCP procedure is based at least in part on a protocol data unit (PDU) set importance (PSI) parameter([0065]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,5-7,9,12-13,15-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohr et al. (US Application 2025/0212179, hereinafter Lohr) in view of Kuo et al. (US Application 2025/0317807, hereinafter Kuo).
Regarding claims 1,12,20, Lohr discloses a user equipment (UE), method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (figs. 1, 6,9,10) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories(604); and one or more processors (602), coupled to the one or more memories([0105]), configured to cause the UE to:
allocate uplink resources to one or more logical channels based at least in part on a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure(Abstract,[0020]-[0026], [0152]-[0153], which recites a user equipment (UE) is configured to establish a logical channel based on a received configuration, the configuration comprising a logical channel priority for the logical channel, determine a first parameter associated with data of the logical channel, and calculate a priority value for the data of the logical channel based at least in part on the first parameter. The UL scheduling procedure, e.g., the LCP procedure and DSR reporting procedure. In one solution, the LCP procedure considers, in addition to the LCH priority, the delay status of data packets (radio link control (RLC) service data units (SDUs))),
wherein the LCP procedure is based at least in part on a logical channel priority parameter (Abstract,[0020]-[0026], [0065],[0111], [0132]-[0133], [0152]-[0153], which recites the first parameter is a remaining delay associated with the data of the logical channel. In one embodiment, the data of the logical channel comprises a RLC SDU. PDU set importance (PSI) can be considered for a PDU set. In one embodiment, the UE 600 may be configured or operable to support a means to prioritize delay-critical data over potential higher priority data in response to a DSR report. Thereby, the LCP procedure is based at least in part on a logical channel priority parameter and at least one of a delay status report (DSR) parameter as claimed by the instant application); and
transmit a medium access control transport block (MAC-TB) using the uplink resources based at least in part on allocating the uplink resources to the one or more logical channels([0072],[0090], which recites the UE reports a BSR MAC CE together with a DSR MAC CE when there is data pending for transmission which is of higher priority than the delay-critical data which is reported in the DSR MAC CE. In one example UE multiplexes a BSR MAC CE, e.g. refined BSR MAC CE, in a TB for cases that UE multiplexes a DSR MAC CE in a TB. In order to give gNB a comprehensive picture of UEs buffer status as well as inform gNB about delay-critical data, UE includes also a BSR MAC CE when transmitting a DSR MAC CE in a TB).
Lohr does not explicitly disclose wherein the LCP procedure is based at least in part on a protocol data unit (PDU) set importance (PSI) parameter.
However, Kuo teaches wherein the LCP procedure is based at least in part on a protocol data unit (PDU) set importance (PSI) parameter([0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuo with the teaching of Lohr by using the above features such as the LCP procedure is based at least in part on a protocol data unit (PDU) set importance (PSI) parameter as taught by Kuo for the purpose of providing an uplink grant prioritized for use by one or more logical channels buffered with important protocol data unit sets(Abstract).
Regarding claims 2,13, Lohr discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to receive a message indicating whether the at least one of the DSR parameter or the PSI parameter is to be considered when allocating the uplink resources to the one or more logical channels(Abstract,[0020]-[0026], [0065],[0111], [0132]-[0133], [0152]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 5, Lohr discloses the UE of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the message, are configured to cause the UE to receive the message based at least in part on one or more metrics derived from at least one of the UE or a network entity([0058],[0110],[0132]).
Regarding claims 6, 15, Lohr discloses the UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more metrics are derived using an artificial intelligence/machine learning model([0043]).
Regarding claims 7, 16, Lohr discloses the UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more metrics include at least one of: a block error rate metric, a drop rate metric, a latency metric, a video condition metric, a channel quality metric, or a round trip time metric([0110],[0132]).
Regarding claims 9, 18, Lohr discloses the UE of claim 2, wherein the message is associated with at least one of: a network slice, a quality of service flow, a network traffic pattern, a subcarrier spacing, a terrestrial network, or a non terrestrial network ([0017]-[0018],[0036]-[0037],[0047]).
Claim(s) 3-4,8,14,and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohr and Kuo in view of Tsai et al. (US Application 2024/0155664, hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claims 3, 14,Lohr discloses the UE of claim 2 as addressed above, except wherein the one or more processors, to receive the message, are configured to cause the UE to receive the message via a semi-static configuration communication or dynamic communication.
However, Tsai teaches the one or more processors, to receive the message, are configured to cause the UE to receive the message via a semi-static configuration communication or dynamic communication ([0123],[0125],[0148],[0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Tsai with the teaching of Lohr by using the above features such as the one or more processors, to receive the message, are configured to cause the UE to receive the message via a semi-static configuration communication or dynamic communication as taught by Tsai for the purpose of Handling out of date delay reports(title).
Regarding claim 4, Lohr discloses the UE of claim 2 as addressed above, except wherein the one or more processors, to receive the message, are configured to cause the UE to receive the message via a dynamic communication.
However, Tsai teaches wherein the one or more processors, to receive the message, are configured to cause the UE to receive the message via a dynamic communication ([0154]-[0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Tsai with the teaching of Lohr by using the above features such as wherein the one or more processors, to receive the message, are configured to cause the UE to receive the message via a dynamic communication as taught by Tsai for the purpose of Handling out of date delay reports(title).
Regarding claims 8,17, Lohr discloses the UE of claim 2, wherein the message is based procedure associated with data to be included in the MAC-TB ([0072],[0090]).
However, Lohr does net explicitly disclose at least the procedure is based in part on a forward error correction.
However, Tsai teaches at least the procedure is based in part on a forward error correction([0071],[0143],[0208]-[0209]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Tsai with the teaching of Lohr by using the above features such as at least the procedure is based in part on a forward error correction as taught by Tsai for the purpose of Handling out of date delay reports(title).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DADY CHERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1207. The examiner can normally be reached M to T, 8 am to 5pm.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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.
/DADY CHERY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights