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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on September 5, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite “determining a delay status report in a particular format” and “generate the DSR according the format”, “determining a delay status report in a particular format” mental and mathematical concept “generate the DSR according the format” is a certain method of organizing human activity — managing interactions/relationships, policies, and compliance e.g. “generate the DSR according the format”: which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? The Examiner finds that claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “identifying a DST trigger for a DSR”, “determining a delay status report in a particular format”, “generate the DSR according the format”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes, mathematical concept, and certain methods of organizing human activity — managing interactions/relationships, policies, and compliance.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The Examiner notes that claim features of: “identifying a DST trigger for a DSR”, “determining a delay status report in a particular format”, “generate the DSR according the format” does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the claim features of “identifying a DST trigger for a DSR”, “determining a delay status report in a particular format”, “generate the DSR according the format” merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept? The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g., a computer) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g., determining, classifying) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed “identifying a DST trigger for a DSR”, “determining a delay status report in a particular format” are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings: “Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claims are merely directed towards the abstract idea of “identifying a DST trigger for a DSR”, “determining a delay status report in a particular format”, “generate the DSR according the format”, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality.
For example, classifying each of the plurality portion of data…which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Similarly, “determining a delay status report in a particular format” is merely determine part of information, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KANAMARLAPUDI et al. (US Publication 2025/0350979) hereafter KANAMARLAPUDI.
As per claim 1, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions that, when executed, cause processing circuitry to: identify a delay status report (DSR) trigger for a DSR (paragraphs: 4, 20, 72, wherein it emphasizes that a delay status report is triggered for DSR); determine a DSR medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) format or type for the DSR based at least in part on one or more characteristics related to the DSR (paragraphs: 86, 136, and 203, wherein it elaborates DSR MAC CE format for the DSR will be prepared based on the characteristics of the DSR); and generate the DSR in accordance with the DSR MAC CE format for transmission (paragraphs: 108, and 137-138, wherein it discusses generates the DSR report according the DSR MAC CE format for transferring).
As per claim 2, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein to determine the DSR MAC CE format or type includes to: determine whether a condition is satisfied for the DSR, wherein the DSR MAC CE format is determined based at least in part on whether the condition is determined to be satisfied (paragraphs: 6, 16-18, wherein it describes the DSR MAC CE format will be determined based on some condition fulfilled for DSR).
As per claim 3, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein the condition relates to: which logical channel (LCH) or logical channel group (LCG) triggered the DSR; one or more buffered data volumes of one or more LCHs or one or more LCGs that triggered the DSR; one or more remaining time values of buffered data of one or more LCHs or one or more LCGs that triggered the DSR; one or more configurations of delay status reporting of one or more LCHs or one or more LCGs that triggered the DSR (paragraphs: 38, and 82, wherein it elaborates that buffered data volumes and remaining time values of buffered data formation of LCH triggers the DSR); a number of one or more LCHs or one or more LCGs that triggered the DSR; one or more importance levels of buffered data of one or more LCHs or one or more LCGs that triggered the DSR; a number of padding bits in a radio resource to be utilized for transmission of the DSR; a size of a radio resource to be utilized for transmission of the DSR; or a type of a radio resource to be utilized for transmission of the DSR (paragraphs: 11, 74, and 85, wherein it discusses that number of LCH triggers the DSR and DSR transmission will depends on the padding bits of a radio resource and size of the radio resource).
As per claim 4, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein to determine the DSR MAC CE format or type includes to: determine whether a number of logical channel groups (LCGs) or logical channels (LCHs) that triggered the DSR exceeds a threshold number of LCGs or LCHs; determine whether an LCG or an LCH that triggered the DSR is configured for a certain MAC CE format; determine whether an LCG or an LCH that triggered the DSR has a priority higher than a threshold priority; or determine whether an LCG or an LCH that triggered the DSR has a delay-critical data volume or a non-delay-critical volume larger than a threshold value (paragraphs: 38, 74, and 81, wherein it confers that a exceeds number of threshold LCGs initiates DSR which determine DSR MAC CE format that triggered the DSR has a delay-critical data volume).
As per claim 5, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein to determine the DSR MAC CE format or type includes to: determine whether a buffer size associated with a remaining time range or a remaining time threshold of the DSR exceeds a threshold data volume; or determine whether a number of remaining time ranges of the DSR associated with data volumes exceeding a threshold data volume exceed a threshold number (paragraphs: 38, 82).
As per claim 6, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein to determine the DSR MAC CE format includes to: determine a difference between two remaining time values for the DSR; and determine whether the difference exceeds a threshold difference (paragraphs: 11, 74, and 107).
As per claim 9, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein to determine the DSR MAC CE format or type includes to: determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on a channel quality of a serving cell where a MAC packet data unit (PDU) that includes the DSR is to be transmitted; or determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on an uplink grant type for a MAC PDU for transmission of the DSR (paragraphs: 13, 76, and 81).
As per claim 10, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein the DSR MAC CE format includes one or more bits or fields that indicate information to be reported in the DSR (paragraphs: 54, and 219).
As per claim 11, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processing circuitry to: identify an indication of the DSR MAC CE format received from a base station, wherein the DSR MAC CE format is determined based at least in part on the indication (7-9, and 20-21).
As per claim 12, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein the DSR MAC CE format or type includes one or more remaining time/buffer size pairs per logical channel group (LCG) (paragraphs: 11, and 38).
As per claim 13, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches an apparatus comprising: processing circuitry to: identifying a delay status report (DSR) trigger for a DSR (paragraphs: 4, 20, 72, wherein it emphasizes that a delay status report is triggered for DSR); determining a DSR medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) format for the DSR (paragraphs: 86, 136, and 203, wherein it elaborates DSR will be prepared based on the characteristics of the DSR in the format of DSR MAC CE), the DSR MAC CE format including: one or more level of detail indicators for indicating a level of detail for each logical channel group (LCG) to be reported in the DSR; or one or more buffer size (BS) table selection indicators for indicating one or more BS tables for one or more data portions of one or more LCGs for the DSR (paragraphs: 81-82, 93-94, and 103-105, wherein it illustrates level of each logical channel group to reported in the DSR for DSR MAC CE format); and generating the DSR in accordance with the DSR MAC CE format for transmission (paragraphs: 108, and 137-138, wherein it discusses generates the DSR report according the DSR MAC CE format for transferring); and interface circuitry coupled with the processing circuitry, the interface circuitry to communicatively couple the processing circuitry with a component of a device (paragraphs: Fig. 1, and Fig. 2, and Fig. 5, and paragraphs: 45, and 168-169, wherein it demonstrates the interface circuitry to communicatively couple the processing circuitry with a device).
As per claim 15, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed the apparatus, wherein the DSR MAC CE format includes the one or more BS table selection indicators, and wherein the one or more BS table selection indicators include a bitmap that indicates BS table selection for one or more BS values to be reported for an LCG of the one or more LCGs (paragraphs: 147-149, and 155-156).
As per claim 16, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed the apparatus, wherein the bitmap includes a first bit for a first data portion of the LCG and a second bit for a second data portion of the LCG (paragraphs: 5-6, and 20-22).
As per claim 17, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed the apparatus, wherein the DSR MAC CE format includes the one or more BS table selection indicators, wherein the DSR is to include information for multiple LCGs, and wherein the one or more BS table selection indicators include multiple bitmaps for the multiple LCGs (paragraphs: 38, and 75-77).
As per claim 18, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed a method comprising: determining a delay status report (DSR) medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) format for a user equipment (UE) (paragraphs: 86, 136, and 203, wherein it elaborates DSR MAC CE format will be determined for a user device); and generating a dynamic signal for transmission to the UE that indicates the UE is to utilize the DSR MAC CE format (paragraphs: 39-41, and 137-138, wherein it discusses that using a dynamic signal for transmitting the DSR MAC CE format to the UE).
As per claim 19, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed the method, wherein the dynamic signal includes a MAC CE signal or a downlink control information (DCI) signal (paragraphs: 53, 58 and 67).
As per claim 20, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed the method, wherein the DSR MAC CE format is a first DSR MAC CE format, wherein the method further comprises configuring the UE with a second DSR MAC CE format, and wherein the dynamic signal reconfigures the UE from the second DSR MAC CE format to the first DSR MAC CE format (paragraphs: 39-41, and 111-113).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMARLAPUDI et al. (US Publication 2025/0350979) hereafter KANAMARLAPUDI, in view of Tsai et al. (US Publication 2025/0212045) hereafter Tsai.
As per claim 7, KANAMARLAPUDI discloses the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the DSR MAC CE format is a first DSR MAC CE format, wherein the first DSR MAC CE format is determined for a subset of LCGs or LCHs for the DSR (paragraphs: 70-71). KANAMARLAPUDI does not expressly disclose wherein to generate the DSR includes to generate a first portion of the DSR corresponding to the first subset in accordance with the first DSR MAC CE format, and wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processing circuitry to: determine a second DSR MAC CE format for a second subset of LCGs or LCHs for the DSR, wherein to generate the DSR includes to generate a second portion of the DSR corresponding to the second subset in accordance with the second DSR MAC CE format.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsai discloses the claimed limitation of wherein to generate the DSR includes to generate a first portion of the DSR corresponding to the first subset in accordance with the first DSR MAC CE format, and wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processing circuitry to: determine a second DSR MAC CE format for a second subset of LCGs or LCHs for the DSR, wherein to generate the DSR includes to generate a second portion of the DSR corresponding to the second subset in accordance with the second DSR MAC CE format (paragraphs: 40, and 460).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Tsai’s teachings of generate the DSR includes to generate a first portion of the DSR corresponding to the first subset in accordance with the first DSR MAC CE format, and wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processing circuitry to: determine a second DSR MAC CE format for a second subset of LCGs with the teachings of KANAMARLAPUDI, for the purpose of effectively the first and second portion of the DSR MAC CE.
As per claim 8, KANAMARLAPUDI discloses the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein to determine the DSR MAC CE format or type includes to: determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on whether a buffered delay-critical data of the DSR includes an important packet; or determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on a quality of service (QOS) requirement of data flows corresponding to one or more logical channels (LCHs) that triggered the DSR (paragraphs: 38, 82, and 102). KANAMARLAPUDI does not discloses determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on whether an uplink grant size for the DSR is larger than an uplink grant size threshold; determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on a number of padding bits in an uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) resource for the DSR.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsai discloses the claimed limitation of determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on whether an uplink grant size for the DSR is larger than an uplink grant size threshold; determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on a number of padding bits in an uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) resource for the DSR (paragraphs: 232-242, 474, and 481).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Tsai’s teachings of determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on whether an uplink grant size for the DSR is larger than an uplink grant size threshold; determine the DSR MAC CE format based at least in part on a number of padding bits in an uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) resource for the DSR with the teachings of KANAMARLAPUDI, for the purpose of concisely formatting the padding bit into the DSR MAC CE format.
As per claim 14, KANAMARLAPUDI does not disclose the apparatus, wherein the DSR MAC CE format includes the one or more level of detail indicators, and wherein the one or more level of detail indicators includes a bitmap that indicates the level of detail for each to be reported in the DSR.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsai discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the DSR MAC CE format includes the one or more level of detail indicators, and wherein the one or more level of detail indicators includes a bitmap that indicates the level of detail for each to be reported in the DSR (133, and 463-464).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Tsai’s teachings of wherein the DSR MAC CE format includes the one or more level of detail indicators, and wherein the one or more level of detail indicators includes a bitmap that indicates the level of detail for each to be reported in the DSR with the teachings of KANAMARLAPUDI, for the purpose of effectively reporting the level bits to the DSR.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455