CTNF 18/807,403 CTNF 90519 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 12717176 , filed on 16 October 2014 . Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 AIA The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 August 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 16 August 2024 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 5, said claims recite “in any one of the following two ways” which renders the claims unclear because “the following two ways” is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in any one of:”. Regarding Claims 2-4 and Claims 6-8, Claims 2-4 and Claims 6-8 are likewise rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 1 and rejected Claim 5 respectively. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-fti The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-fti Claim s 1-3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 36.321 V8.5.0 (See PTO-892: Non-Patent Literature: Reference U; hereinafter referred to as “3GPPTS36321”) in view of Asustek (Cancellation of Scheduling Request, See PTO-892: Non-Patent Literature: Reference V; hereinafter referred to as “Asustek”) . Regarding Claim 1, 3GPPTS36321 discloses a method in a user equipment for handling a scheduling request, the method comprising: triggering a scheduling request in response to receiving new data to be transmitted to a base station ( Pg. 25: §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, 3GPPTS36321 discloses triggering a scheduling request (SR) in response to triggering a regular buffer status report (BSR) where a BSR is triggered in response to the arrival of uplink (UL) data at a Radio Link Control (RLC) layer of a user equipment (UE) ), which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled ( Pg. 25, §5.4.4, 3GPPTS36321 discloses that a scheduling request (SR) will remain pending until the SR is canceled ); and cancelling the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data being accounted for in an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ( Pg. 25: §5.4.4: Scheduling Request, 3GPPTS36321 discloses canceling all pending SRs in response to the reception of a grant indicating uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) resources for a new uplink transmission in a particular transmission time interval (TTI) ). However, 3GPPTS36321 does not disclose cancelling the pending scheduling request when pending uplink data is accounted for in a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report. ASUSTek, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches cancelling the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data being accounted for in a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station ( Pg. 2-3: §5.4.4: Scheduling Request, Asustek discloses canceling all pending SRs when there are no triggered BSRs. Pg. 2-3, §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, Asustek discloses cancelling all triggered BSRs in response to transmitting a Media Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) where the MAC PDU includes a BSR ), said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ( Pgs. 2-3: §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, 3GPPTS36201 discloses that the MAC PDU includes a BSR ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 3GPPTS36321 by cancelling the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data being accounted for in a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report as taught by ASUSTek because the consumption of power at the UE is reduced by preventing unnecessary transmission of BSRs, which, in turn, improves the operation of the UE by allowing the UE to operate longer ( Asustek, Pg. 1, Consequences if not approved ). Regarding Claim 2, 3GPPTS36321 in view of ASUSTek discloses the method of claim 1. 3GPPTS36321 further discloses triggering the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data comprises generating a buffer status report trigger which in turn triggers the scheduling request ( Pg. 25: §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, 3GPPTS36201 discloses triggering a scheduling request (SR) in response to triggering a regular buffer status report (BSR) where a BSR is triggered in response to the arrival of uplink (UL) data at a Radio Link Control (RLC) layer of a user equipment (UE) ). Regarding Claim 3, 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek discloses the method of claim 2. AsusTek, a prior art in the same field of endeavor, further teaches canceling the pending scheduling request comprises canceling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the canceling of the pending scheduling request ( Pg. 2-3: §5.4.4: Scheduling Request, Asustek discloses canceling all pending SRs when there are no triggered BSRs. Pg. 2-3, §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, Asustek discloses cancelling all triggered BSRs in response to transmitting a Media Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) where the MAC PDU includes a BSR ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek by canceling the pending scheduling request comprises canceling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the canceling of the pending scheduling request as taught by AsusTek because the consumption of power at the UE is reduced by preventing unnecessary transmission of BSRs, which, in turn, improves the operation of the UE by allowing the UE to operate longer ( Asustek, Pg. 1, Consequences if not approved ) . 07-21-fti Claim s 4-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 3GPPTS36321 in view of Asustek in further view of Womack et al. (US 20090239476 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Womack”) . Regarding Claim 4, 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek discloses the method of claim 1. However, 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek does not disclose sending the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity in response to the pending scheduling request being pending during the scheduling request opportunity. Womack, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches sending the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity in response to the pending scheduling request being pending during the scheduling request opportunity ( ¶35, Womack discloses transmitting a scheduling request (SR) using an assigned scheduling request channel assignment at the next available opportunity while the UE stores data for uplink transmission ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek by sending the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity in response to the pending scheduling request being pending during the scheduling request opportunity as taught by Womack because maintaining uplink synchronization improves throughput and battery life ( Womack, ¶3 ). Regarding Claim 5, 3GPPTS36321 discloses a user equipment configured to handle a scheduling request, wherein the [UE] is configured to: trigger a scheduling request in response to new data becoming available to be transmitted to a base station ( Pg. 25: §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, 3GPPTS36321 discloses triggering a scheduling request (SR) in response to triggering a regular buffer status report (BSR) where a BSR is triggered in response to the arrival of uplink (UL) data at a Radio Link Control (RLC) layer of a user equipment (UE) ), which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled ( Pg. 25, §5.4.4, 3GPPTS36321 discloses that a scheduling request (SR) will remain pending until the SR is canceled ); cancel the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data being accounted for in an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ( Pg. 25: §5.4.4: Scheduling Request, 3GPPTS36321 discloses canceling all pending SRs in response to the reception of a grant indicating uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) resources for a new uplink transmission in a particular transmission time interval (TTI) ). However, 3GPPTS36321 does not disclose cancelling the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data being accounted for in a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report. AsusTek, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches cancelling the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data being accounted for in a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station ( Pg. 2-3: §5.4.4: Scheduling Request, Asustek discloses canceling all pending SRs when there are no triggered BSRs. Pg. 2-3, §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, Asustek discloses cancelling all triggered BSRs in response to transmitting a Media Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) where the MAC PDU includes a BSR ), said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ( Pgs. 2-3: §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, 3GPPTS36201 discloses that the MAC PDU includes a BSR ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 3GPPTS36321 by cancelling the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data being accounted for in a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report as taught by AsusTek because the consumption of power at the UE is reduced by preventing unnecessary transmission of BSRs, which, in turn, improves the operation of the UE ( Asustek, Pg. 1, Consequences if not approved ). However, 3GPPTS36201 in view of AsusTek does not disclose said user equipment comprising: an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals; radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry. Womack, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches said user equipment comprising: an antenna ( ¶56 & Fig. 11, Womack discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising an antenna 506 ) configured to send and receive wireless signals ( ¶58, Womack discloses that the antenna of the UE enables the UE to send and receive information to and from a network or peer UE as wireless signals respectively ); radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry ( ¶56 & Fig. 11, Womack discloses that the UE further comprises front end unit 506 and a radio frequency (RF) transceiver 508 which are coupled to the antenna 506 ), and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry ( ¶58-59, Womack discloses that the transceiver and the front end unit of the UE enables the UE to process the information into the wireless signals ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek by requiring that said user equipment comprises an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals and further comprises radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry as taught by Womack because maintaining uplink synchronization improves throughput and battery life ( Womack, ¶3 ). Regarding Claim 6, 3GPPTS36201 in view of AsusTek in further view of Womack discloses the user equipment of claim 5. 3GPPTS36321 further discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data by generating a buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the scheduling request ( Pg. 25: §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, 3GPPTS36201 discloses triggering a scheduling request (SR) in response to triggering a regular buffer status report (BSR) where a BSR is triggered in response to the arrival of uplink (UL) data at a Radio Link Control (RLC) layer of a user equipment (UE) ). Regarding Claim 7, 3GPPTS36201 in view of AsusTek in further view of Womack discloses the user equipment of claim 6. AsusTek, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the canceling of the pending scheduling request ( Pg. 2-3: §5.4.4: Scheduling Request, Asustek discloses canceling all pending SRs when there are no triggered BSRs. Pg. 2-3, §5.4.5: Buffer Status Reporting, Asustek discloses cancelling all triggered BSRs in response to transmitting a Media Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) where the MAC PDU includes a BSR ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek by requiring that the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the canceling of the pending scheduling request as taught by AsusTek because the consumption of power at the UE is reduced by preventing unnecessary transmission of BSRs, which, in turn, improves the operation of the UE by allowing the UE to operate longer ( Asustek, Pg. 1, Consequences if not approved ). Regarding Claim 8, 3GPPTS36201 in view of AsusTek in further view of Womack discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Womack, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processing circuitry being further configured to send the scheduling request to the base station during a next scheduling request opportunity in response to the pending scheduling request being pending during the scheduling request opportunity ( ¶35, Womack discloses transmitting a scheduling request (SR) using an assigned scheduling request channel assignment at the next available opportunity while the UE stores data for uplink transmission ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek by requiring that the processing circuitry being further configured to send the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity in response to the pending scheduling request being pending during the scheduling request opportunity as taught by Womack because maintaining uplink synchronization improves throughput and battery life ( Womack, ¶3 ) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12069666 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘666 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5. Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6. Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7. Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8. Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses a user equipment configured to handle a scheduling request, said user equipment comprising: an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals ( Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals ); radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry ( Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry ), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: trigger a scheduling request in response to receiving new data to be transmitted to a base station, which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled ( Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses trigger a scheduling request in response to new data becoming available to be transmitted to a base station, which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled); cancel the pending scheduling request when pending uplink data, including the new data that triggered the transmission of the scheduling request, is accounted for in any one of the following two ways ( Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses cancel the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data, including the new data that triggered the transmission of the scheduling request, being accounted for in any one of the following two ways ): a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ( Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ); an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ( Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ). Regarding Claim 6, Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Claim 6 of the ‘666 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data by generating a buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the scheduling request ( Claim 6 of the ‘666 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data by generating a buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the scheduling request ). Regarding Claim 7, Claim 5 and Claim 6 of the ‘666 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 6. Claim 7 of the ‘666 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the cancelling of the pending scheduling request ( Claim 7 of the ‘666 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the canceling of the pending scheduling request ). Regarding Claim 8, Claim 5 of the ‘666 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Claim 8 of the ‘666 Patent discloses the processing circuitry being further configured to send the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity if the pending scheduling request is still pending during the scheduling request opportunity ( Claim 8 of the ‘666 Patent discloses the processing circuitry being further configured to send the scheduling request to the base station during a next scheduling request opportunity in response to the pending scheduling request being pending during the scheduling request opportunity ). Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10904911 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘911 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5. Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6. Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7. Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8. Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses a user equipment configured to handle a scheduling request, said user equipment comprising: an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals ( Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals ); radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry ( Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry ), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: trigger a scheduling request in response to receiving new data to be transmitted to a base station, which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled ( Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses trigger a scheduling request in response to new data becoming available to be transmitted to a base station, which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled); cancel the pending scheduling request when pending uplink data, including the new data that triggered the transmission of the scheduling request, is accounted for in any one of the following two ways ( Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses cancel the pending scheduling request in response to pending uplink data, including the new data that triggered the transmission of the scheduling request, being accounted for in any one of the following two ways ): a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ( Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ); an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ( Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ). Regarding Claim 6, Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Claim 6 of the ‘911 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data by generating a buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the scheduling request ( Claim 6 of the ‘911 Patent discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data by generating a buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the scheduling request ). Regarding Claim 7, Claim 5 and Claim 6 of the ‘911 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 6. Claim 7 of the ‘911 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the cancelling of the pending scheduling request ( Claim 7 of the ‘911 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the canceling of the pending scheduling request ). Regarding Claim 8, Claim 5 of the ‘911 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Claim 8 of the ‘911 Patent discloses the processing circuitry being further configured to send the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity if the pending scheduling request is still pending during the scheduling request opportunity ( Claim 8 of the ‘911 Patent discloses the processing circuitry being further configured to send the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity if the pending scheduling request is still pending during the scheduling request opportunity ). Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10375721 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘721 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5. Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6. Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7. Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8. Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses a user equipment configured to handle a scheduling request, said user equipment comprising: an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals ( Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals ); radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry ( Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry ), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: trigger a scheduling request in response to receiving new data to be transmitted to a base station, which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled ( Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses trigger a scheduling request in response to receiving new data to be transmitted to a base station, which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled ); cancel the pending scheduling request when pending uplink data, including the new data that triggered the transmission of the scheduling request, is accounted for in any one of the following two ways ( Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses cancel the pending scheduling request when pending uplink data is accounted for in any one of the following two ways ): a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ( Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is to be transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ); an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ( Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ). Regarding Claim 6, Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Claim 6 of the ‘721 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data by generating a buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the scheduling request ( Claim 6 of the ‘721 Patent discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data by generating a buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the scheduling request ). Regarding Claim 7, Claim 5 and Claim 6 of the ‘721 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 6. Claim 7 of the ‘721 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the cancelling of the pending scheduling request ( Claim 7 of the ‘721 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the canceling of the pending scheduling request ). Regarding Claim 8, Claim 5 of the ‘721 Patent discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Claim 8 of the ‘721 Patent discloses the processing circuitry being further configured to send the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity if the pending scheduling request is still pending during the scheduling request opportunity ( Claim 8 of the ‘721 Patent discloses the processing circuitry being further configured to: send the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity if the pending scheduling request is still pending during the scheduling request opportunity ). 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 9307553 (hereinafter referred as “the ‘533 Patent”) in view of Womack . Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5. Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6. Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7. Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8. Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 of the ‘553 Patent discloses a user equipment configured to handle a scheduling request, said user equipment comprising: trigger a scheduling request in response to receiving new data to be transmitted to a base station, which scheduling request will remain pending until it is cancelled ( Claim 5 of the ‘553 Patent discloses trigger a scheduling request which will remain pending until it is cancelled, in response to receipt of the data ); cancel the pending scheduling request when pending uplink data, including the new data that triggered the transmission of the scheduling request, is accounted for in any one of the following two ways ( Claim 5 of the ‘553 Patent discloses configure the user equipment to cancel the pending scheduling request based on an uplink grant being received which can accommodate all pending data in the buffer that is available for transmission; and cancel the pending scheduling request if either of the following occurs ): a Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is transmitted to the base station, said PDU including a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ( Claim 5 of the ‘553 Patent discloses the Medium Access Control (MAC) Packet Data Unit (PDU) is assembled in the user equipment which includes a buffer status report which contains buffer status up to and including the last event that triggered a buffer status report ); an uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all the pending uplink data available for transmission ( Claim 5 of the ‘553 Patent discloses the uplink grant has been received which can accommodate all pending data in the buffer that is available for transmission ). However, Claim 5 of the ‘553 Patent does not disclose said user equipment comprising: an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals; radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry, , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to [perform a method]. Womack, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches said user equipment comprising: an antenna ( ¶56 & Fig. 11, Womack discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising an antenna 506 ) configured to send and receive wireless signals ( ¶58, Womack discloses that the antenna of the UE enables the UE to send and receive information to and from a network or peer UE as wireless signals respectively ); radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry ( ¶56 & Fig. 11, Womack discloses that the UE further comprises front end unit 506 and a radio frequency (RF) transceiver 508 which are coupled to the antenna 506 and to a controller or central processing unit ), and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry ( ¶58-59, Womack discloses that the transceiver and the front end unit of the UE enables the UE to process the information into the wireless signals ), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to [perform a method] ( ¶34-35 & Fig. 6, Womack discloses the UE performing a method ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 3GPPTS36321 in view of AsusTek by requiring that said user equipment comprises an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals and further comprises radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and to processing circuitry, and configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to [perform a method] as taught by Womack because maintaining uplink synchronization improves throughput and battery life ( Womack, ¶3 ). Regarding Claim 6, Claim 5 of the ‘553 Patent in view of Womack discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Claim 6 of the ‘553 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the new data by generating a buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the scheduling request ( Claim 6 of the ‘553 Patent discloses wherein to trigger the scheduling request in response to receiving the data, the processing circuit is configured to generate a buffer status report trigger which in turn triggers the scheduling request ). Regarding Claim 7, Claim 5 and Claim 6 of the ‘553 Patent in view of Womack discloses the user equipment of claim 6. Claim 7 of the ‘553 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel the pending scheduling request by cancelling the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers the cancelling of the pending scheduling request ( Claim 7 of the ‘553 Patent discloses wherein to cancel the pending scheduling request, the processing circuit is configured to cancel the buffer status report trigger, which in turn triggers cancelation of the pending scheduling request ). Regarding Claim 8, Claim 5 of the ‘553 Patent in view of Womack discloses the user equipment of claim 5. Claim 8 of the ‘553 Patent discloses the processing circuitry being further configured to send the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity if the pending scheduling request is still pending during the scheduling request opportunity ( Claim 8 of the ‘553 Patent discloses wherein the processing circuit is further configured to send the scheduling request to a base station during a next scheduling request opportunity if the pending scheduling request is still pending during the scheduling request opportunity ). Internet Communications Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM. 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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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. /ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 2 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 3 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 4 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 5 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 6 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 7 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 8 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 9 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 10 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 11 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 12 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 13 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 14 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 15 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 16 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 17 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 18 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 19 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 20 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 21 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 22 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 23 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 24 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 25 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/807,403 Page 26 Art Unit: 2474
Prosecution Insights