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 amendment filed on April 20, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-15, and 17-20 are amended. Examiner withdraws 35 USC 101 rejection as necessary corrections were made to the claims.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in new ground of rejection.
The instant application is directed towards selection of delay status report (DSR) medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) formats for delay status reporting. Similarly, KANAMARLAPUDI discloses a user equipment (UE) may dynamically trigger a delay status reporting procedure based on multiple delay status reporting triggers. For example, the UE may receive, from a network entity of a serving cell of the UE, a delay status reporting configuration including an indication of multiple triggering events associated with delay status reporting for one or more logical channels of the UE. The UE may transmit, in accordance with the delay status reporting configuration, a report indicative of a delay status of a first logical channel of the one or more logical channels based on a first triggering event of the multiple triggering events being satisfied. The UE may select the first triggering event from the multiple triggering events based on a radio condition associated with the UE, a traffic pattern associated with the first logical channel, or both. The invention relates to wireless communications, including techniques for dynamic delay status reporting (DSR). outputting a DSR configuration including an indication of a set of multiple triggering events associated with a DSR for one or more logical channels of a UE and obtaining, in accordance with the DSR configuration, a report indicative of a delay status of a first logical channel of the one or more logical channels based on a first triggering event of the set of multiple triggering events being satisfied, where the first triggering event is selected from the set of multiple triggering events based on a radio condition associated with the UE, a traffic pattern associated with the first logical channel, or both. By selecting the first triggering event from multiple triggering events included in the DSR configuration, the described techniques can be used to improve a radio resource management (RRM) of the UE. For example, by including multiple triggering events in the DSR configuration, the UE may have a greater level of flexibility associated with triggering the DSR procedure. The UE may dynamically select and apply triggering events in response to radio conditions or traffic patterns, which may improve the RRM of the UE compared to the DSR configuration indicating a single triggering event, such as a single remaining time threshold.
Tsai discloses a wireless device transmits, to a base station, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for delay status reporting (DSR). The MAC CE indicates a shortest remaining time, of one or more remaining times of one or more data units, based on a time associated with transmission of the MAC CE. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior arts, the rejection is sustained for the cited claims.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 13 and 18 recite similar features to claim 1. Claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 each depend from one of the respective independent claims, and rendered obvious by the combination of the prior arts for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies. Examiner respectfully sustains the rejections.
Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention. Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
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 1-6, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMARLAPUDI et al. (US Publication 2025/0350979) hereafter KANAMARLAPUDI, in view of STOICA et al. (US Publication 2025/0338166) hereafter STOICA.
As per claim 1, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions that, when executed, cause processing circuitry to: triggering a delay status report (DSR) based at least in part on a remaining time of a discard timer for a logical channel being below a threshold time (paragraphs: 11, 20, 72, 81: wherein it emphasizes that a delay status report is triggered for DSR, and triggering event includes a remaining time threshold of the remaining time thresholds selected by the UE); determine a DSR medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) format for the DSR based at least in part on delay status information being associated with more than one time threshold to be reported (paragraphs: 38, 81, 107, 197: 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 to a base station, wherein the delay status information is associated with more than one time threshold to be reported (paragraphs: 87-90, 108, and 137-138, wherein it discusses generates the DSR report according the DSR MAC CE format for transferring). Although, KANAMARLAPUDI discloses techniques for dynamic delay status reporting based on triggering event, but fails to elaborately disclose wherein the delay status information is associated with more than one time threshold to be reported and the DSR MAC CE format includes: a first pair of a remaining time field and a buffer size field; and an indicator field that indicates whether an additional pair of a remaining time field and a buffer size field is included in the DSR MAC CE format.
However, in the same field of endeavor, STOICA discloses the claims limitation of wherein the delay status information is associated with more than one time threshold to be reported and the DSR MAC CE format includes: a first pair of a remaining time field and a buffer size field; and an indicator field that indicates whether an additional pair of a remaining time field and a buffer size field is included in the DSR MAC CE format (paragraphs 7-9, 84-89).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate STOICAs’ teaching of delay resource allocation with the teachings of KANAMARLAPUDI, for the purpose of effectively having scheduling enhancement and resources allocation with the DSR MAC CE.
As per claim 2, KANAMARLAPUDI the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, wherein to determine the DSR MAC CE format 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 LCGs or 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 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 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 LCG (paragraphs: 11, and 38).
As per claim 13, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches an apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; and processing circuitry coupled with interface circuitry, the processing circuitry to: trigger a delay status report (DSR) based at least in part on a remaining time of a discard timer for a logical channel being below a threshold time (paragraphs: 11, 20, 72, 81: wherein it emphasizes that a delay status report is triggered for DSR, and triggering event includes a remaining time threshold of the remaining time thresholds selected by the UE); determine 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: for indicating remaining time field and buffer size; or one or more buffer size (BS) table selection indicators for indicating one or more BS tables for one or more data portions of a logical channel group (LCG) for the DSR (paragraphs: 81-82, 103-107, 197, wherein it illustrates level of each logical channel group to reported in the DSR for DSR MAC CE format); and generate the DSR in accordance with the DSR MAC CE format for transmission to a base station via the interface circuitry (paragraphs: 108, and 137-138, wherein it discusses generates the DSR report according the DSR MAC CE format for transferring). Although, KANAMARLAPUDI discloses techniques for dynamic delay status reporting based on triggering event, but fails to elaborately disclose the DSR MAC CE format includes: a first pair of a remaining time field and a buffer size field; and an indicator field for indicating that additional pair of a remaining time field and a buffer size field is included in the DSR MAC CE format.
However, in the same field of endeavor, STOICA discloses the claims limitation of the DSR MAC CE format includes: a first pair of a remaining time field and a buffer size field; and an indicator field for indicating that additional pair of a remaining time field and a buffer size field is included in the DSR MAC CE format (paragraphs 7-9, 84-89).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 13.
As per claim 15, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed the apparatus, 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 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).
Claim 18 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
As per claim 19, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed the method, wherein the format further includes one or more buffer size (BS) table selection indicators for indicating one or more BS tables for one or more data portions of a logical channel group (LCG) for the DSR (paragraphs: 38, 74-78, and 67).
As per claim 20, KANAMARLAPUDI disclosed the method, wherein the indicator field includes a value of “1’ to indicate that the additional pair is included in the DSR MAC CE format (paragraphs: 38-41, 127, 162-164).
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 STOICA et al. (US Publication 2025/0338166) hereafter STOICA, in further view of Tsai et al. (US Publication 2025/0212045) hereafter Tsai.
As per claim 7, KANAMARLAPUDI-STOICA 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 (KANAMARLAPUDI: paragraphs: 70-71; STOICA: paragraphs 87-89, 103). KANAMARLAPUDI-STOICA fail to 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-STOICA, for the purpose of effectively the first and second portion of the DSR MAC CE.
As per claim 8, KANAMARLAPUDI-STOICA 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 LCHs that triggered the DSR (KANAMARLAPUDI: paragraphs: 38, 82, and 102; STOICA: paragraphs 87-89, 103). KANAMARLAPUDI-STOICA fail to expressly disclose 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-STOICA, for the purpose of concisely formatting the padding bit into the DSR MAC CE format.
As per claim 14, KANAMARLAPUDI-STOICA does not disclose the apparatus, wherein the DSR MAC CE format includes one or more level of detail indicators, and 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 one or more level of detail indicators, and 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-STOICA, 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights