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
The Amendment filed July 30, 2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered. Prior to the Amendment, claims 1-10 were pending in the application. By the Amendment, claims 1-10 were amended, and no claim was cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-10 remain pending and ready for examination.
Applicant’s claim amendment and remarks made in the Amendment were carefully and fully considered, but they were unpersuasive. The grounds of rejection presented in the previous Office Action are maintained. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
Relevant Technical Information Submittal Requirement
Applicant’s response on p.6 of the Amendment to this requirement is acknowledged with appreciation. The representation and confirmation that the Applicant has already submitted all relevant technical information known to the Applicant is accepted as a full response to the requirement. The Applicant is remined of the continued duty to disclose, particularly with respect to the technical documents relating to the 3GPP standard and essential patent (SEP) declaration.
Withdrawal of Objections to Specification and Claims
In view of the amendments to the claims and to the specification, which fully address the issues raised in the objections made in the previous Office Action, all such objections to the claims and specification made in the previous Office Action are now withdrawn.
Withdrawal of Double Patenting
In view of the amendments to the claims of this instant application, and in view of the amendments to the claims of the co-pending Reference Application (Application No. 18/715,466)), the claims as amended respectively of the two co-pending application being not coextensive in scope, the provisional double patenting rejections made in the previous Office Action are now withdrawn. See, MPEP §804/02.
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 section151, 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sachs et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0259896)(“Sachs”).
Regarding claim 1, Sachs discloses a method (See, e.g., Fig. 67) comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) (See, e.g., Fig. 67, “UE;” and Fig. 124, #2500; and ¶[1290]), information related to a configured uplink grant from a network (See, e.g., Figs. 71 and 72, “RRC signaling;” ¶[1021], “The NR UL configured grant (CG) has been specified in two variants, configured grant type 1 and type 2;” and ¶[1033], “The procedures of Type 1 CG are illustrated in FIG. 71, whereas the procedures of Type 2 CG are illustrated in FIG. 72.”);
generating, by the UE, a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (See, e.g., ¶[1047], “whenever a new transmission is to be performed……[constructing a] MAC PDU which is going to be sent over the PUSCH via PHY.”);
based on the MAC PDU not being obtained before an occurrence of the configured uplink grant1 (See, e.g., Fig. 69, showing a newly arriving data (thus, the MAC PDU containing the newly arrived data) not being able to be transmitted in the current “UL-SCH”. See, also, Figs. 70-72 and ¶[1019], “pre-scheduling of multiple, periodically recurring UL grants,” i.e., the UL-SCHs. “It is called configured grant (Type 1 and Type 2) in the uplink (UL)”), transmitting, by the UE, a message for requesting a dynamic uplink grant (See, ¶[0990], “Buffer Status Reports (BSR) and Scheduling Requests (SR) are the two methods which the UE can use to indicate that data is available in the transmission buffer. These indications may result in that the network provides a grant, i.e., UL-SCH resources to the UE to allow data transmissions. This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”) on the configured uplink grant2 (See, ¶[0991], “SR is a one-bit indication in PUCCH;” and “The BSR is transmitted in a MAC Control Element (CE) which is transmitted in the PUSCH.”);
receiving, by the UE, the dynamic uplink grant (See, Fig. 67, UE receiving a “grant;” and ¶[0990], “This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”); and
transmitting, by the UE, the MAC PDU on the dynamic uplink grant (See, Fig. 67, “data”).
Regarding claim 2/1, Sachs discloses a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Sachs discloses further that the message for requesting the dynamic uplink grant includes information that the configured uplink grant cannot guarantee a processing time of the MAC PDU (See, Fig. 59; and ¶s[0933]-[0942], for the discussion of the processing time, e.g., “TUE Proc” + “TULalign.” Sachs et al. states in ¶[0990] that the BSR and SR “are the two methods which the UE can use to indicate that data is available in the transmission buffer.” That is, BSR and SR themselves include information that the UE has available data that is not able to be transmitted during the current uplink opportunity, i.e., during the current CG occasion. According to Sachs et al., such inability to transmit the available data may be caused by the data arrival time and/or size irregularity. See, ¶[1009], “SR and BSR will play an important role to assist Industrial IoT traffic to meet the different requirements of each traffic, especially when the traffic periodicity and size is unpredictable,” Emphasis added. Accordingly, Sachs et al. discloses that BSR and SR can indicate the failure to transmit available data may be due to the insufficient time for processing, an example of which is shown in Fig. 69 (showing data arrival too close to the uplink occasion)).
Regarding claim 3/1, Sachs discloses a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Sachs discloses further that the message for requesting the dynamic uplink grant is transmitted via a medium access control, MAC, control element (CE) including at least one of an index of the configured uplink grant or an amount of the MAC PDU3 (See, ¶[0999], “The BSR is transmitted as a MAC Control Element in the MAC PDU… indicate the approximate amount of data in the buffers… is indicated per Logical Channel Group (LCG),” Emphasis added. See, also, ¶[1010], “A specific SR configuration could be mapped to a specific Logical Channel” See, Fig. 75, showing multiple CG configurations; and ¶[1039], “Because of their different stream characteristics, all of these streams cannot be supported with a single configuration (CG), even if the CG is supported using very short periodicity, because the CG will have a single set of configuration parameters, e.g., MCS index, latency, slot period, K-repetition;” and ¶[1063], “For example, applying restrictions like “ConfiguredGrantType2Allowed” or “max ReliabilityAllowed” to a LCH supporting critical traffic enable the UE to avoid data from a non-critical LCH being sent using too robust resources.” Sachs et al. thus discloses an association of ones of multiple CG configurations with corresponding ones of the LCHs based on their respective characteristics. Because the BSR and SR both have association with specific LCH or LCG as already discussed above, the particular one of multiple CG configurations may be identified by either of the BSR or SR by their associated logical channel(s). Accordingly, each of the BSR and SR indicates an index of the CG or an amount of the data to be included in a MAC PDU.).
Regarding claim 4/1, Sachs discloses a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Sachs discloses further that the message for requesting the dynamic uplink grant comprises a buffer status report (BSR) (See, Fig. 67, “data + BSR;” and ¶[0990], “BSR’ or “SR” “ may result in that the network provides a grant, i.e., UL-SCH resources to the UE to allow data transmissions. This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”).
Regarding claim 5, . (Currently Amended) A user equipment (UE) (See, e.g., Fig. 124, #2500; and ¶[1290]) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 124, #2502, “PROCESSOR(S)”); and
at least one computer memory (Fig. 124, #2504, “MEMORY”) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform operations (See, ¶[1290]-[1291]) comprising:
receiving information related to a configured uplink grant from a network (See, e.g., Figs. 71 and 72, “RRC signaling;” ¶[1021], “The NR UL configured grant (CG) has been specified in two variants, configured grant type 1 and type 2;” and ¶[1033], “The procedures of Type 1 CG are illustrated in FIG. 71, whereas the procedures of Type 2 CG are illustrated in FIG. 72.”);
generating a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (See, e.g., ¶[1047], “whenever a new transmission is to be performed……[constructing a] MAC PDU which is going to be sent over the PUSCH via PHY.”);
based on the MAC PDU not being obtained before an occurrence of the configured uplink grant4 (See, e.g., Fig. 69, showing a newly arriving data (thus, the MAC PDU containing the newly arrived data) not being able to be sent in the current “UL-SCH”. See, also, Figs. 70-72 and ¶[1019], “pre-scheduling of multiple, periodically recurring UL grants,” i.e., the UL-SCHs. “It is called configured grant (Type 1 and Type 2) in the uplink (UL)”), transmitting a message for requesting a dynamic uplink grant (See, ¶[0990], “Buffer Status Reports (BSR) and Scheduling Requests (SR) are the two methods which the UE can use to indicate that data is available in the transmission buffer. These indications may result in that the network provides a grant, i.e., UL-SCH resources to the UE to allow data transmissions. This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”) on the configured uplink grant5 (See, ¶[0991], “SR is a one-bit indication in PUCCH;” and “The BSR is transmitted in a MAC Control Element (CE) which is transmitted in the PUSCH.”);
receiving the dynamic uplink grant (See, Fig. 67, UE receiving a “grant;” and ¶[0990], “This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”); and
transmitting the MAC PDU data unit on the dynamic uplink grant (See, Fig. 67, “data”).
Regarding claim 6/5, Sachs discloses a UE comprising all elements recited in claim 5 as discussed above.
Sachs discloses further that the message for requesting the dynamic uplink grant includes information that the configured uplink grant cannot guarantee a processing time of the MAC PDU (See, Fig. 59; and ¶s[0933]-[0942], for the discussion of the processing time, e.g., “TUE Proc” + “TULalign.” Sachs et al. states in ¶[0990] that the BSR and SR “are the two methods which the UE can use to indicate that data is available in the transmission buffer.” That is, BSR and SR themselves include information that the UE has available data that is not able to be transmitted during the current uplink opportunity, i.e., during the current CG occasion. According to Sachs et al., such inability to transmit the available data may be caused by the data arrival time and/or size irregularity. See, ¶[1009], “SR and BSR will play an important role to assist Industrial IoT traffic to meet the different requirements of each traffic, especially when the traffic periodicity and size is unpredictable,” Emphasis added. Accordingly, Sachs et al. discloses that BSR and SR can indicate the failure to transmit available data may be due to the insufficient time for processing, an example of which is shown in Fig. 69 (showing data arrival too close to the uplink occasion)).
Regarding claim 7/5, Sachs discloses a UE comprising all elements recited in claim 5 as discussed above.
Sachs discloses further that the message for requesting the dynamic uplink grant is transmitted via a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) including at least one of an index of the configured uplink grant or an amount of the MAC PDU6 (See, ¶[0999], “The BSR is transmitted as a MAC Control Element in the MAC PDU… indicate the approximate amount of data in the buffers… is indicated per Logical Channel Group (LCG),” Emphasis added. See, also, ¶[1010], “A specific SR configuration could be mapped to a specific Logical Channel” See, Fig. 75, showing multiple CG configurations; and ¶[1039], “Because of their different stream characteristics, all of these streams cannot be supported with a single configuration (CG), even if the CG is supported using very short periodicity, because the CG will have a single set of configuration parameters, e.g., MCS index, latency, slot period, K-repetition;” and ¶[1063], “For example, applying restrictions like “ConfiguredGrantType2Allowed” or “max ReliabilityAllowed” to a LCH supporting critical traffic enable the UE to avoid data from a non-critical LCH being sent using too robust resources.” Sachs et al. thus discloses an association of ones of multiple CG configurations with corresponding ones of the LCHs based on their respective characteristics. Because the BSR and SR both have association with specific LCH or LCG as already discussed above, the particular one of multiple CG configurations may be identified by either of the BSR or SR by their associated logical channel(s). Accordingly, each of the BSR and SR indicates an index of the CG or an amount of the data to be included in a MAC PDU.).
Regarding claim 8/5, Sachs discloses a UE comprising all elements recited in claim 5 as discussed above.
Sachs discloses further that the message for requesting the dynamic uplink grant comprises a buffer status report (BSR) (See, Fig. 67, “data + BSR;” and ¶[0990], “BSR’ or “SR” “ may result in that the network provides a grant, i.e., UL-SCH resources to the UE to allow data transmissions. This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”).
Regarding claim 9, Sachs discloses an apparatus for a user equipment (UE) (See, e.g., Fig. 67, “UE;” and Fig. 124, #2500; and ¶[1290]), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 124, #2502, “PROCESSOR(S)”); and
at least one computer memory (Fig. 124, #2504, “MEMORY”) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform operations (See, ¶[1290]-[1291]) comprising:
receiving information related to a configured uplink grant from a network (See, e.g., Figs. 71 and 72, “RRC signaling;” ¶[1021], “The NR UL configured grant (CG) has been specified in two variants, configured grant type 1 and type 2;” and ¶[1033], “The procedures of Type 1 CG are illustrated in FIG. 71, whereas the procedures of Type 2 CG are illustrated in FIG. 72.”);
generating a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (See, e.g., ¶[1047], “whenever a new transmission is to be performed……[constructing a] MAC PDU which is going to be sent over the PUSCH via PHY.”);
based on the MAC PDU not being obtained before an occurrence of the configured uplink grant7 (See, e.g., Fig. 69, showing a newly arriving data (thus, the MAC PDU containing the newly arrived data) not being able to be sent in the current “UL-SCH”. See, also, Figs. 70-72 and ¶[1019], “pre-scheduling of multiple, periodically recurring UL grants,” i.e., the UL-SCHs. “It is called configured grant (Type 1 and Type 2) in the uplink (UL)”), transmitting a message for requesting a dynamic uplink grant (See, ¶[0990], “Buffer Status Reports (BSR) and Scheduling Requests (SR) are the two methods which the UE can use to indicate that data is available in the transmission buffer. These indications may result in that the network provides a grant, i.e., UL-SCH resources to the UE to allow data transmissions. This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”) on the configured uplink grant8 (See, ¶[0991], “SR is a one-bit indication in PUCCH;” and “The BSR is transmitted in a MAC Control Element (CE) which is transmitted in the PUSCH.”);
receiving the dynamic uplink grant (See, Fig. 67, UE receiving a “grant;” and ¶[0990], “This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”); and
transmitting the MAC PDU data unit on the dynamic uplink grant (See, Fig. 67, “data”).
Regarding claim 10, Sachs et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Fig. 124, #2504, “MEMORY;” and ¶[1291], “a computer readable storage medium (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium such as a physical memory)”) comprising program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (Fig. 124, #2502, “PROCESSOR(S)”), cause a user equipment (UE) to perform operations comprising (See, ¶[1290], “the functionality of the UE 2500 described above may be fully or partially implemented in software that is, e.g., stored in the memory 2504 and executed by the processor(s) 2502.”):
receiving information related to a configured uplink grant from a network (See, e.g., Figs. 71 and 72, “RRC signaling;” ¶[1021], “The NR UL configured grant (CG) has been specified in two variants, configured grant type 1 and type 2;” and ¶[1033], “The procedures of Type 1 CG are illustrated in FIG. 71, whereas the procedures of Type 2 CG are illustrated in FIG. 72.”);
generating a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (See, e.g., ¶s[1047], “whenever a new transmission is to be performed……[constructing a] MAC PDU which is going to be sent over the PUSCH via PHY.”);
based on the MAC PDU not being obtained before an occurrence of the configured uplink grant9 (See, e.g., Fig. 69, showing a newly arriving data (thus, the MAC PDU containing the newly arrived data) not being able to be sent in the current “UL-SCH”. See, also, Figs. 70-72 and ¶[1019], “pre-scheduling of multiple, periodically recurring UL grants,” i.e., the UL-SCHs. “It is called configured grant (Type 1 and Type 2) in the uplink (UL)”), transmitting a message for requesting a dynamic uplink grant (See, ¶[0990], “Buffer Status Reports (BSR) and Scheduling Requests (SR) are the two methods which the UE can use to indicate that data is available in the transmission buffer. These indications may result in that the network provides a grant, i.e., UL-SCH resources to the UE to allow data transmissions. This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”) on the configured uplink grant10 (See, ¶[0991], “SR is a one-bit indication in PUCCH;” and “The BSR is transmitted in a MAC Control Element (CE) which is transmitted in the PUSCH.”);
receiving the dynamic uplink grant in response to the message (See, Fig. 67, UE receiving a “grant;” and ¶[0990], “This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling.”); and
transmitting the MAC PDU on the dynamic uplink grant (See, Fig. 67, “data”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art references relied upon in support of the rejections in the previous Office Action, namely, Sachs, allegedly fails to teach the features of claim 1, 5, 9 and 10 as amended, i.e., "based on the MAC PDU not being obtained before an occurrence of the configured uplink grant, transmitting a message for requesting a dynamic grant on the configured uplink grant". See, Amendment at Pp. 8-9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In support of the above argument, Applicant cites Fig. 69 and ¶¶[0990] and [0991] of Sachs, reproduced below (with annotations added).
[0990] Buffer Status Reports (BSR) and Scheduling Requests (SR) are the two methods which the UE can use to indicate that data is available in the transmission buffer. These indications may result in that the network provides a grant, i.e., UL-SCH resources to the UE to allow data transmissions. This is commonly known as dynamic scheduling. An example of SR and BSR operation is shown in FIG. 67.
[0991] In a nutshell, one of the major differences between SR and BSR is that the SR is a one-bit indication in PUCCH which signals that the UE has data for transmission, while the BSR explicitly provides an approximate value of the amount of data that the UE has in its buffer on a per logical channel group basis. The BSR is transmitted in a MAC Control Element (CE) which is transmitted in the PUSCH.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sachs as whole including the above portions disclose: 1) a BSR or an SR is a message requesting a dynamic grant when there is data available (see, Sachs, ¶[0990]); 2) the arrival of a new data triggers a BSR and/or SR (see, id., Fig. 69 showing an SR being sent on the next available SR resources, and that the BSR MAC CE would have been included in the MAC PDU but for the fact that the MAC PDU is already built.). That is, the BSR, as a general matter, is transmitted as MAC CE over the PUSCH (i.e., in the payload of a MAC PDU. See, id., ); and 3) that “whenever a new transmission is to be performed, and it is mainly used to specify how and what LCHs are going to fill the MAC PDU which is going to be sent over the PUSCH via PHY.” See, id., ¶[1047]. This means that in order to transmit the newly arrived data, a MAC PDU must be assembled.
Thus, Sachs discloses a MAC PDU containing the newly arrived data (“New MAC PDU”) is not ready for transmission in the current UL-SCH resource. See, id., Fig. 69. A BSR or an SR (i.e., a message requesting a dynamic grant) is to be sent based on the New MAC PDU not being obtained before an occurrence of the configured uplink grant, e.g., in time for the UL-SCH shown in Fig. 69.
Based on Applicant’s reading of the above cited portions, Applicant concludes that “Sachs describes, at best, that, when data cannot be transmitted on an uplink channel, the UE relies on conventional signaling over separate physical channels (e.g., PUCCH or a distinct PUSCH resource). However, Sachs fails to disclose or suggest transmitting a request message directly on the specific configured grant resource itself for which the MAC PDU was not obtained.” See, Amendment at p. 9.
While the exact claim language upon which Applicant is relying in support of the above purported distinctions is unclear, as best understood by the Examiner, the purported distinction appears to be that the BSR and/or SR of Sachs are sent using radio resources different from “the specific configured grant resource itself for which the MAC PDU was not obtained.” No feature actually recited in the claims require such distinction.
Sachs discloses (and well understood by one skilled in the art) that a configured grant includes “pre-scheduling of multiple, periodically recurring UL grants,” i.e., the UL-SCHs.” See, Sachs, ¶[1019]. These multiple periodically recurring grants are each allocated with resources (in the time domain and in the frequency domain). The language of the claims as currently presented, e.g., “on the configured uplink grant” does not require that the BSR, for example, being sent using “the specific configured grant resource itself for which the MAC PDU was not obtained.” That is, the claims do not recite any feature that requires the BSR to be sent over the same PUSCH or even on the same uplink occasion (i.e., using the resources for a specific one of the multiple periodically recurring grants).
Further, the non-recited features notwithstanding, Sachs does disclose that a BSR may be sent during the same UL-SCH occasion for which the NEW MAC PDU is not ready in time, The proper reading of the notation in Sachs, Fig. 69, namely, “1. Data arrival 2. MAC PDU for UL-SCH is already built and cannot include BSR MAC CE” is that, but for the fact that the MAC PDU containing the already processed data (“Old MAC PDU”) being already built at the timing indicated by the arrow, the BSR MAC CE would have been included in the Old MAC PDU. Sachs discloses, as a general proposition, that the “BSR is transmitted in a MAC Control Element (CE) which is transmitted in the PUSCH.” See, Sachs at ¶[0991]. In the example of Fig. 69 to illustrate the undesirable delay in sending the SR, a situation where the MAC PDU being already built (and thus BSR MAC CE is unable to be included) is shown, but Sachs suggests that, had the MAC PDU not been built at the indicated timing, i.e., when the data arrives, the BSR would have been included in the MAC PDU to be sent in the current UL-SCH.
Applicant’s assertion that the OLD MAC PDU being “already built and available for transmission” fails to “disclose or suggest triggering a dynamic grant request based on the condition that the MAC PDU itself is not obtained prior to the occurrence of the configured grant instance” appear to be based on mis-reading of Sachs. It is readily apparent that Sachs discloses, even by the portions cited by Applicant, that the triggering of the BSR, for example, is based on the fact that the New MAC PDU is not available in time for the current UL-SCH, and the triggering has no relevance to the Old MAC PDU.
For at least the above reasons, the Examiner remains unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments, and thus maintains the same grounds of rejections of previous Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
1) Vangala et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US2024/0196377) teaches various aspects of the claimed subject matter, e.g., see, Figs. 4, 5, 6a and 6b and the description thereof., particularly, see, ¶¶[0037]-[0042].
12. No new grounds of rejection is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KI S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM - 5:30PM.
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 R 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.
/K.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 October 7, 2026
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 The term “obtained” in light of the claim recitation of a positive step of generating the MAC PDU is ambiguous. As MAC PDU being generated would indicate that the MAC entity has the PDU in possession, it is unclear as to which entity is being referred to that is to obtain the PDU. One possible reading of the claim passage is that the PDU is not “generated” before (in the temporal sense) the CG uplink occasion, which reading is adapted for the purpose of the examination.
2 This claim limitation “the configured grant,” construed applying the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) principle (See, MPEP §2173.01), for the purpose of the examination, is read to mean “using the resources allocated for an uplink occasion pre-scheduled by a configured grant.” Under such reading, the recitation “on the configured grant” does not preclude, e.g., a BSR being transmitted in any one of the plural PUSCH occasions of the configured grant. As one skilled in the art would readily recognize, a priori, a configured grant may typically include a plurality of pre-scheduled , periodic uplink occasions each with allocated resources (i.e., in time and frequency domains). The UE is able to send a PUSCH using the resources allocated for the periodic occasions at any occasion of UE’s choice.
Sachs Fig. 69 (“1. Data arrival 2. MAC PDU for UL-SCH is already built and cannot include BSR MAC CE”) and ¶[0991] (“The BSR is transmitted in a MAC Control Element (CE) which is transmitted in the PUSCH.”) read together as whole discloses that the BSR is generally sent as a MAC CE included in a MAC PDU, which is transmitted over the PUSCH in an uplink occasion, i.e., one of the CG uplink occasions. Fig. 69 simply indicates in the depicted example (intended to highlight the aspect of the delay in the transmittal of the SR (i.e., over PUCCH)), for the particular uplink occasion is not feasible because the particular MAC PDU for the one occasion has been built already. Sachs discloses that, but for the fact the particular MAC PDU is already built, the BSR would have been included in the MAC PDU intended for the current uplink occasion.
3 For the purpose of the examination, and under BRI, this limitation “an amount of the MAC PDU” is construed to mean the size, that is, the amount of data for inclusion in a MAC PDU, and not in the numerical sense, i.e., how many PDUs.
4 See footnote 1 above.
5 See footnote 2 above.
6 See footnote 3.
7 See footnote 1 above.
8 See footnote 2 above.
9 See footnote 1 above.
10 See footnote 2 above.
