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
The amendment filed on 06-26-2026 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-14 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-14 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (US 2018/0368023) in view of Baek et al (US 2020/0053593). Hereinafter referred to as Hang and Baek.
Regarding claim 1, 7, and 13-14, Hang discloses a method for performing operations of a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (see at least paragraph [0009]), the method comprising: allocating uplink resources to at least two logical channels belonging to at least two logical channel groups (LCGs) (see at least paragraphs [0011], and [0103]); based on a size of remaining uplink resources after allocation being equal to or larger than a size of a short buffer status report (BSR) plus corresponding subheader and smaller than a size of a long BSR plus corresponding subheader, determining whether the size of remaining uplink resources is smaller than a size of a long truncated BSR with zero Buffer Size field plus corresponding subheader or not (see at least paragraphs [0109]-[0110], and [0113]-[0114]); and based on the size of remaining uplink resources being smaller than the size of the long truncated BSR with zero Buffer Size field plus corresponding subheader and based on the at least two LCGs having data available for transmission, transmitting a short Truncated BSR based on the uplink resources (see at least paragraphs [0109]-[0110], and [0113]-[0114]).
Hong discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of determining based the size of remaining uplink resources after allocation being smaller than a size of a long BSR plus corresponding subheader. However, Baek, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining based the size of remaining uplink resources after allocation being smaller than a size of a long BSR plus corresponding subheader (see at least figure 5 and paragraph [0083]). Thus, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Baek, as indicated, into the communication method of Hong for the purpose improving network communication efficient resource utilization.
Regarding claims 2 and 8. Hong in view of Baek discloses a method further comprising: based on the size of remaining uplink resources being equal to or larger than the size of the long truncated BSR with zero Buffer Size field plus corresponding subheader, transmitting the long Truncated BSR based on the uplink resources (see at least paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Hong in view of Baek discloses a method further comprising: based on the size of remaining uplink resources after allocation being equal to or larger than a size of the long BSR plus corresponding subheader, transmitting the long BSR based on the uplink resources see at least paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claims 4 and 10. Hong in view of Baek discloses a method wherein the short Truncated BSR is related to a LCG with the highest priority logical channel with data available for transmission among the at least two LCGs (see at least paragraph [0119]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11. Hong in view of Baek discloses a method wherein a configurable maximum identifier of the LCGs is larger than 8 (see at ;east paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claims 6 and 12. Hong in view of Baek disclose a method wherein the long truncated BSR comprises a Buffer Size field and a bitmap that indicates the presence of the Buffer Size field for the corresponding LCG (see at least figure 8 and paragraph [0121]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights