DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to the Application/Control Number: 18/842,741 filed on 08/29/2024.
Claims Status
2. This office action is based upon claims received on 08/29/2024, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
-Claims 1-30 are pending.
-Claims 1-30 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of a 371 of PCT/CN2022/090830, filed 04/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2024, 01/14/2026, 08/04/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “unit” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “unit” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “unit” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” or “unit” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” or “unit” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” or “unit” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: means for receiving, means for adjusting, means for transmitting, means for re-adjusting, means for wherein the one or more transport blocks include additional uplink data, means for the adjusting, means for updating, means for distributing in claims 23-26.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 23-26 are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: FIG. 1, FIG. 5, ¶0070 - ¶0078; FIG. 6, ¶0079-¶0083; FIG. 8, ¶0092-¶0099; ¶0123-¶0125, ¶0129, ¶0130.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 el seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. Regarding claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 23, 27, 30, these claims recite the terms "to be transmitted" which is not a positively cited claim language. Language that suggests or makes optional/intended use (for example, “so that”; “thereby”; “capable of”; “adapted to”; “able to”; “enable to”; “can be”; “may be”; “should be”; “….able”; “combinable”; “configurable”) but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation(s). Such clauses may render parts of the claims optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04). [Note: the limitation recites after “to be” clause is not given patentable weight because it is optional for the positively processing steps. The term may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. A similar alternative term such as a positive action verb to perform the function without any unnecessary ambiguity is suggested.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested to review and address questions raised and clarify its objective for the referred to claim language.
B. Claims 20, 21, 22 recite terms “the adjustment to the distribution scheme” for a first time with a preceding article “the” (i.e. “the adjustment to the distribution scheme” ) without prior introduction or provision of a reference antecedence for “the adjustment”. While claim 12 recites “adjust the distribution scheme” which appears to indicate antecedence for “adjustment”, there appears to be no preceding recitation of “adjustment” introduced for provision of antecedent basis including in claim 12 from which claims 20, 21, 22 depend, and as such, this office action respectfully contends questions about antecedence may be raised regarding “the adjustment”.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested to appropriately address and verify as applicable, applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 5, 7, 16, 18, 30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A. Claims 5, 16, 30 recite terms “the associated logical channel” for a first time with a preceding article “the” (i.e. “the associated logical channel”) without prior introduction or provision of a reference antecedence for “the associated logical channel”. There appears to be no preceding recitation of “associated logical channel” introduced for provision of antecedent basis including in claim 1, 12, 27 from which claims 5, 16, 30 depend, and as such, this office action respectfully contends there is a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “the associated logical channel” in Claims 5, 16, 30 find antecedent basis.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and verify as applicable, applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
B. Claims 7, 18 recite terms “the two or more logical channels” for a first time with a preceding article “the” (i.e. “the two or more logical channels”) without prior introduction or provision of a reference antecedence for “the two or more logical channels”. There appears to be no preceding recitation of “two or more logical channels” introduced for provision of antecedent basis including in claim 1, 12 from which claims 7, 18 depend, and as such, this office action respectfully contends there is a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “the two or more logical channels” in claims 7, 18 find antecedent basis.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and verify as applicable, applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the
examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised
of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that
was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner
to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art
against the later invention.
12. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 16-20, 23-25, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan et al. (US 20110182251 A1) i.e. “Madan” in view of Futaki et al. (US 10721728 B2) i.e. “Futaki”, further in view of Rossbach et al. (US 20230180217 A1) i.e. “Rossbach”.
Regarding Claim 1. Madan teaches: A method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 8 & ¶0034 […] access point 102 can allocate a plurality of resources and related logical channels to wireless device 104 for communicating with the wireless network or other device. The logical channels can relate to communicating different types of data (e.g., voice data, control data, web data, streaming data, etc.) over communications resources and can have associated bit rate and/or quality of service (QoS) requirements. The communications resources can relate to portions of frequency over portions of time, in one example, such as one or more orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols, one or more frequency sub-carriers, and/or the like. For example, the logical channels can include physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), and/or other shared or dedicated channels in an LTE wireless network;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 step 806 & FIG. 1-3 & per 0034 i.e. access point 102 can allocate a plurality of resources and related logical channels reads on: A method for wireless communication i.e. to wireless device 104 reads on: at a user equipment (UE) i.e. for communicating with the wireless network),
comprising: receiving an uplink grant that indicates a resource allocation for an uplink communication from the UE to a network entity (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3 FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See above;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 step 806 & FIG. 1-3 & per 0034 i.e. access point 102 can allocate a plurality of resources and related logical channels reads on: comprising: receiving an uplink grant that indicates a resource allocation i.e. to wireless device 104 for communicating with the wireless network reads on: for an uplink communication from the UE to a network entity ),
the resource allocation for distribution among at least two logical channels including a first logical channel that has a higher priority than a second logical channel, wherein a distribution scheme provides a first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel and the first amount exceeds a threshold value ( Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3 FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See above; ¶0038 […] RRC layer 106, for example, can additionally provide the adjusted PBRs to wireless device 104, which can modify logical channel transmission rates according to the adjusted PBRs. It is to be appreciated that the RRC layer 106 can send the PBRs to wireless device 104 (or a portion thereof) once the PBR reaches a threshold level, varies from a previous PBR over a threshold variance […] ; ¶0047 […] PBR adjusting component 208 can modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR, and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources (and/or the logical channels with GBR by increasing the PBR beyond the GBR based on remaining resources). In another example, PBR adjusting component 208 can modify PBR of one or more logical channels to ensure that substantially all logical channels (or at least a specified set of logical channels) have a high likelihood of receiving resources at a wireless device based on an assigned PBR and PBRs assigned to other logical channels. In yet another example, resource scheduling component 204 computes desired rates to maximize the sum utility of average rates of all logical channel for substantially all wireless devices served by access point 102; […] PBR communicating component 210 can communicate changes to PBR to wireless device 104 (e.g., via RRC signaling), and wireless device 104 can multiplex logical channels when communicating with access point 102 according to the changes. Moreover, for example, PBR communicating component 210 can provide the changes to wireless device 104 only where the changes are above a threshold level as compared to one or more previous PBR values; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 Step 804 modify scheduling policy, step 806 schedule resources & FIG. 1-3 & per ¶0038 i.e. provide the adjusted PBRs to wireless device 104 and i.e. send the PBRs to wireless device 104 , where per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels reads on: the resource allocation for distribution among at least two logical channels i.e. by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR i.e. as applied to one or more logical channels reads on: including a first logical channel that has a higher priority , furthermore per ¶0047 i.e. and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources reads on: than a second logical channel. Furthermore per ¶0047 i.e. ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR reads on: wherein a distribution scheme provides a first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel and per ¶0047 as applied to the one or more logical channels i.e. provide the changes to wireless device 104 only where the changes are above a threshold level as compared to one or more previous PBR values reads on: and the first amount exceeds a threshold value as reiterated by ¶0038 i.e. send the PBRs to wireless device 104 (or a portion thereof) once the PBR reaches a threshold level, varies from a previous PBR over a threshold variance );
adjusting the distribution scheme to provide an adjusted first amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a first amount of control information to be transmitted on the first logical channel, and to provide a second amount of the resource allocation to the second logical channel, the second amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a second amount of control information to be transmitted on the second logical channel (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3 FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See above; ¶0038 See above; ¶0047 see above;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 Step 804 modify scheduling policy, step 806 schedule resources & FIG. 1-3 & per ¶0038 i.e. provide the adjusted PBRs to wireless device 104 and i.e. send the PBRs to wireless device 104 , where per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels i.e. by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR reads on: adjusting the distribution scheme to provide an adjusted first amount of the resource allocation , where per ¶0034 i.e. the logical channels can include PUCCH reads on: corresponding to a first amount of control information to be transmitted , per ¶0047 i.e. by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR i.e. as applied to one or more logical channels reads on: on the first logical channel. Furthermore per ¶0047 i.e. as applied to one or more logical channels i.e. and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources reads on: and to provide a second amount of the resource allocation to the second logical channel where per ¶0034 i.e. the logical channels can include PUCCH reads on: the second amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a second amount of control information to be transmitted , and furthermore per ¶0047 i.e. and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources i.e. as applied to one or more logical channels reads on: on the second logical channel);
and transmitting one or more transport blocks that include the first amount of control information for the first logical channel and the second amount of control information for the second logical channel (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3 FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See above; ¶0037 […] the scheduler 108 and/or RLC layer 110 can report feedback to the RRC layer 106 (or other layer or component) related to resource allocation to each wireless device (e.g., a number of resource blocks, transport format, etc.); ¶0038 See above; ¶0047 see above;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0034 i.e. allocate a plurality of resources and related logical channels i.e. to wireless device 104 for communicating with the wireless network reads on: and transmitting , where per ¶0034 i.e. a plurality of resources and related logical channels that can be per ¶037 i.e. number of resource blocks, transport format reads on: one or more transport blocks . Furthermore where per ¶0047 i.e. PBR communicating component 210 can communicate changes to PBR to wireless device 104 (e.g., via RRC signaling), and wireless device 104 can multiplex logical channels when communicating with access point 102 according to the changes, where per ¶0047 the changes include i.e. per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels i.e. by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR and where per ¶0034 i.e. the logical channels can include PUCCH reads on: that include the first amount of control information for the first logical channel , and furthermore per ¶0047 i.e. as applied to one or more logical channels i.e. and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources where per ¶0034 i.e. the logical channels can include PUCCH reads on: and the second amount of control information for the second logical channel).
While Madan teaches: transmitting one or more transport blocks as noted above where per ¶0037 i.e. resource allocation to each wireless device (e.g., a number of resource blocks, transport format, etc.) implies uplink transmission in the form of resource blocks as part of a transport format, assuming arguendo Madan implies transport blocks and therefore i.e.
Madan does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (i.e. See italicized portions of claim limitations): transmitting one or more transport blocks;
Futaki teaches: transmitting one or more transport blocks that include the first logical channel and the second logical channel (Futaki FIG. 8A & Col 2 ln 60-64 […] UE generates an uplink (UL) Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU) to be transmitted using available resources (Uplink Grant) allocated from an eNB, One MAC PDU is also called a transport block ; Col 13 ln 41-58 […] specific example of the control for generation of uplink MAC PDUs is described with reference to FIGS. 8A to 8C. FIG. 8A is a schematic diagram showing an example of generating an uplink MAC PDU in the MeNB 11 (PCell 110) when no bearer split is performed. FIG. 8A shows an example in which data from two logical channels (i.e., LCH #1 and LCH #2) is multiplexed on available resources (MAC PDU) indicated by an Uplink Grant from the MeNB 11. The LCH #1 is assigned a highest priority (first priority) and PBR1. The LCH #2 is assigned a second priority and PBR2. In accordance with the uplink PBR procedure specified in the LTE standards, resources up to the PBR1 are first allocated to the LCH #1 which is of the highest priority, and then resources up to the PBR2 are allocated for the LCH #2. After that, the remaining room in the available resources (MAC PDU) is filled with data from the LCH #1 until there is no further data from the LCH #1 which is of the highest priority; Col 13 60-67, Col 14 ln 1-5, 20-21) uplink resources of the SCell 120 granted to the UE 2 by the SeNB 12 can be used mainly for transmission of data from the logical channel LCH #2. However, in the example shown in FIG. 8B, the PBRs for the logical channels LCH #1 and LCH #2 are the same as those in the example shown in FIG. 8A (i.e., PBR1 and PBR2), and the logical channel LCH #2 of the split EPS bearer is provided with the PBR2 in each of the PCell 110 and the SCell 120 […] MAC PDUs (i.e., Transport Blocks);
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. generating an uplink MAC PDU in the MeNB 11 (PCell 110) reads on: transmitting where i.e. when no bearer split is performed. FIG. 8A shows an example in which data from two logical channels (i.e., LCH #1 and LCH #2) is multiplexed i.e. on available resources (MAC PDU) where per Col 2 ln 60-64 […] UE generates an uplink (UL) Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU) to be transmitted using available resources (Uplink Grant) allocated from an eNB, i.e. One MAC PDU is also called a transport block reads on: reads on: one or more transport blocks and per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. The LCH #1 is assigned a highest priority (first priority) and PBR1. The LCH #2 is assigned a second priority and PBR2. In accordance with the uplink PBR procedure specified in the LTE standards, resources up to the PBR1 are first allocated to the LCH #1 which is of the highest priority reads on: that include the first logical channel , and then resources up to the PBR2 are allocated for the LCH #2 reads on: and the second logical channel );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan with teachings of Futaki, since Futaki enables an improvement in control of an access stratum when dual connectivity involving a bearer split is performed (Futaki - Col 4 ln 59-61).
While Madan in view of Futaki teaches: A method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving an uplink grant that indicates a resource allocation for an uplink communication from the UE to a network entity, the resource allocation for distribution among at least two logical channels including a first logical channel that has a higher priority than a second logical channel, wherein a distribution scheme provides a first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel and the first amount exceeds a threshold value; adjusting the distribution scheme to provide an adjusted first amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a first amount of control information to be transmitted on the first logical channel, and to provide a second amount of the resource allocation to the second logical channel, the second amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a second amount of control information to be transmitted on the second logical channel; and transmitting one or more transport blocks that include the first amount of control information for the first logical channel and the second amount of control information for the second logical channel,
Where Madan teaches a first amount of control information to be transmitted on the first logical channel, and a second amount of control information to be transmitted on the second logical channel as noted above, where per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels i.e. by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR, and again per ¶0047 i.e. as applied to one or more logical channels i.e. and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources teaches at least a first logical channel and a second logical channel with different priorities and per ¶0034 i.e. the logical channels can include PUCCH as applied implies the first logical channel and second logical channel can be PUCCH and therefore a first amount of control information and a second amount of control information; assuming arguendo Madan implies a first amount of control information, and a second amount of control information, and therefore i.e.
Madan in view of Futaki does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (i.e. See italicized portions of claim limitations): a first amount of control information, and a second amount of control information;
Rossbach teaches: a first amount of control information to be transmitted on the first logical channel, and a second amount of control information to be transmitted on the second logical channel; and transmitting one or more transport blocks that include the first amount of control information for the first logical channel and the second amount of control information for the second logical channel (Rossbach ¶0091 […] increasing the LCH priority of the UL grant for the PUSCH with UCI comprises: in accordance with a determination that the UCI carries HARQ-ACK, increasing the LCH priority of an LCH mapped to the PUSCH with HARQ-ACK by a first fixed value, and in accordance with a determination that the UCI carries CSI, increasing the LCH priority of an LCH mapped to the PUSCH with CSI by a second fixed value. The first fixed value is larger than the second fixed value; ¶0092 […] UCI with HARQ-ACK. increases LCH priority level by 2, and UCI with CSI increases it by 1 so that a PUSCH with HARQ-ACK generally has a higher priority than a PUSCH with CSI; FIG. 8 & ¶0149 […] UCI with HARQ-ACK and UCI with CSI can be separately indicated to MAC. MAC can prioritize UCI with HARQ-ACK and/or handle UCI with CSI. To avoid breaking PHY-prioritization, some embodiments could be applied only if there is no overlapping PUSCH of higher PHY priority;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0091 i.e. increasing the LCH priority of i.e. an LCH mapped to the PUSCH with HARQ-ACK reads on: a first amount of control information to be transmitted on the first logical channel , i.e. and in accordance with a determination that the UCI carries CSI, increasing the LCH priority of an LCH mapped to the PUSCH with CSI reads on: and a second amount of control information to be transmitted on the second logical channel , where per FIG. 8 steps 810, 820, and 820 i.e. Creating a MAC PDU for PUSCH where per ¶0149 MAC can prioritize UCI with HARQ-ACK and handle UCI with CSI also reads on: transmitting one or more transport blocks that include the first amount of control information for the first logical channel and the second amount of control information for the second logical channel);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki, with teachings of Rossbach, since Rossbach enables procedures to enable Uplink (UP) grant prioritization enhancement (Rossbach - ¶0001, ¶0091 - ¶0092).
Regarding Claim 2. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
Furthermore Futaki teaches: further comprising: re-adjusting the distribution scheme to provide a remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel, and wherein the one or more transport blocks include additional uplink data for at least the first logical channel based at least in part on the remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation (Futaki FIGS. 8A to 8C & Col 2 ln 60-64 See claim 1; Col 13 ln 41-58 See claim 1; Col 13 60-67, Col 14 ln 1-5, 20-21 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. resources up to the PBR1 are first allocated to the LCH #1 which is of the highest priority, and then resources up to the PBR2 are allocated for the LCH #2. i.e. After that, the remaining room in the available resources (MAC PDU) is filled with data from the LCH #1 until there is no further data from the LCH #1 which is of the highest priority reads on: further comprising: re-adjusting the distribution scheme to provide a remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel . Furthermore i.e. FIG. 8A shows an example in which data from two logical channels (i.e., LCH #1 and LCH #2) is multiplexed on available resources (MAC PDU) as depicted in FIG. 8A & 8B reads on: and wherein the one or more transport blocks , where per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. After that, the remaining room in the available resources (MAC PDU) is filled with data from the LCH #1 until there is no further data from the LCH #1 reads on: include additional uplink data for at least the first logical channel FIG. 8A & FIG. 8B show remaining portion of LCH 1 mapped to MAC PDU or TB based at least in part on the remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, further with the teachings of Futaki, since Futaki enables an improvement in control of an access stratum when dual connectivity involving a bearer split is performed (Futaki - Col 4 ln 59-61).
Regarding Claim 3. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Madan teaches: the adjusting comprising: updating a first prioritized bit rate (PBR) of the first logical channel to correspond to the first amount of control information; and updating a second PBR of the second logical channel to correspond to the second amount of control information (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3 FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See Claim 1; ¶0038 See Claim 1; ¶0047 see Claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 Step 804 modify scheduling policy, step 806 schedule resources & FIG. 1-3 & per ¶0038 i.e. provide the adjusted PBRs to wireless device 104 and i.e. send the PBRs to wireless device 104 , where per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels i.e. by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR reads on: the adjusting comprising: updating a first prioritized bit rate (PBR) of the first logical channel to correspond to , where per ¶0034 i.e. the logical channels can include PUCCH reads on: the first amount of control information. Furthermore per ¶0047 i.e. as applied to one or more logical channels i.e. and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources reads on: and updating a second PBR of the second logical channel to where per ¶0034 i.e. the logical channels can include PUCCH reads on: the second amount of control information).
Regarding Claim 5. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Madan teaches: the adjusting comprising: adjusting, for each logical channel of the at least two logical channels, a prioritized bit rate (PBR) to correspond to a minimum of a current PBR (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3 FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See Claim 1; ¶0038 See Claim 1; ¶0047 see Claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0038 i.e. additionally provide the adjusted PBRs to wireless device 104, which can modify logical channel transmission rates according to the adjusted PBRs and per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR reads on: the adjusting comprising: adjusting, for each logical channel of the at least two logical channels . Furthermore per ¶0038 i.e. the RRC layer 106 can send the PBRs to wireless device 104 (or a portion thereof) once the PBR reaches a threshold level, varies from a previous PBR over a threshold variance and per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR reads on: a prioritized bit rate (PBR) to correspond to a minimum of a current PBR and i.e. and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources)
or (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight)
a corresponding amount of control information that is to be transmitted on the associated logical channel(note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight).
Regarding Claim 6. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Futaki teaches: wherein the first amount of information corresponds to a first number of bytes in a first high priority traffic protocol data unit (PDU) of the first logical channel, and the second amount of information corresponds to a second number of bytes in a second high priority traffic PDU of the second logical channel (Futaki FIGS. 8A to 8C & Col 2 ln 60-64 See claim 1; Col 13 ln 41-58 See claim 1; Col 13 60-67, Col 14 ln 1-6, 20-21 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per Col 13 60-67, Col 14 ln 1-6, 20-21 i.e. in the example shown in FIG. 8B, the PBRs for the logical channels LCH #1 and LCH #2 are the same as those in the example shown in FIG. 8A (i.e., PBR1 and PBR2) where FIG. 8B depicts LCH1 mapped to first MAC PDU reads on: wherein the first amount of information and i.e. the bit rate of the logical channel LCH #2 which is of the second priority is higher than i.e. the bit rate of the logical channel LCH #1 reads on: corresponds to a first number of bytes FIG. 8B depicts LCH1 mapped to first MAC PDU reads on: in a first high priority traffic protocol data unit (PDU) of the first logical channel. Furthermore i.e. and the logical channel LCH #2 of the split EPS bearer is provided with the PBR2 in each of the PCell 110 and the SCell 120 i.e. FIG. 8B LCH#2 is also depicted on MAC PDU SCELL reads on: and the second amount of information corresponds i.e. i.e. the bit rate of the logical channel LCH #2 which is of the second priority is higher than reads on: to a second number of bytes . FIG. 8B LCH#2 is also depicted on MAC PDU SCELL reads on: in a second high priority traffic PDU of the second logical channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, further with the teachings of Futaki, since Futaki enables an improvement in control of an access stratum when dual connectivity involving a bearer split is performed (Futaki - Col 4 ln 59-61).
Mandan in view of Futaki does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (See claim 1 i.e. See italicized portions of claim limitations): the first amount of control information, and the second amount of control information;
Rossbach teaches: the first amount of control information, and the second amount of control information (Rossbach ¶0091 See claim 1; FIG. 8 & ¶0149 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0091 i.e. increasing the LCH priority of i.e. an LCH mapped to the PUSCH with HARQ-ACK reads on: the first amount of control information , i.e. and in accordance with a determination that the UCI carries CSI, increasing the LCH priority of an LCH mapped to the PUSCH with CSI reads on: and the second amount of control information);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, further with the teachings of Rossbach, since Rossbach enables procedures to enable Uplink (UP) grant prioritization enhancement (Rossbach - ¶0001, ¶0091 - ¶0092).
Regarding Claim 7. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Madan teaches: wherein a highest priority logical channel of the two or more logical channels is provided with any remaining resources of the resource allocation prior to distributing any resources of the resource allocation to any lower priority logical channels (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3 FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See Claim 1; ¶0038 See Claim 1; ¶0047 see Claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 Step 804 modify scheduling policy, step 806 schedule resources & FIG. 1-3 & per ¶0038 i.e. provide the adjusted PBRs to wireless device 104 and i.e. send the PBRs to wireless device 104 , where per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels by ensuring PBR of logical channels with a GBR is at least the GBR reads on: wherein a highest priority logical channel of the two or more logical channels is provided with any remaining resources of the resource allocation, per ¶0047 i.e. and then can optimize PBRs among the remaining logical channels by increasing PBR based on remaining available resources reads on: prior to distributing any resources of the resource allocation to any lower priority logical channels).
Regarding Claim 8. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Futaki teaches: further comprising: forming the one or more transport blocks in accordance with the distribution scheme for transmission to the network entity (Futaki FIGS. 8A to 8C & Col 2 ln 60-64 See claim 1; Col 13 ln 41-58 See claim 1; Col 13 60-67, Col 14 ln 1-6, 20-21 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. generating an uplink MAC PDU in the MeNB 11 (PCell 110) where i.e. when no bearer split is performed. FIG. 8A shows an example in which data from two logical channels (i.e., LCH #1 and LCH #2) is multiplexed i.e. on available resources (MAC PDU) where per Col 2 ln 60-64 […] UE generates an uplink (UL) Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU) to be transmitted i.e. , i.e. One MAC PDU is also called a transport block reads on: further comprising: forming the one or more transport blocks , where furthermore i.e. using available resources (Uplink Grant) allocated from an eNB and per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. The LCH #1 is assigned a highest priority (first priority) and PBR1. The LCH #2 is assigned a second priority and PBR2. In accordance with the uplink PBR procedure specified in the LTE standards, resources up to the PBR1 are first allocated to the LCH #1 which is of the highest priority reads on: in accordance with the distribution scheme for transmission to the network entity ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, further with the teachings of Futaki, since Futaki enables an improvement in control of an access stratum when dual connectivity involving a bearer split is performed (Futaki - Col 4 ln 59-61).
Regarding Claim 9. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Futaki teaches: wherein the adjusting is performed based at least in part on whether the second logical channel has
a radio link control (RLC) control protocol data unit (PDU) (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight)
or (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight)
high priority data in an associated transmit buffer (Futaki FIG. 7, FIGS. 8A to 8C & Col 2 ln 60-64 See claim 1; Col13 ln 22-27 […] the MeNB 11 may update a parameter(s) related to the LCP procedure applied to generation of uplink MAC PDUs (e.g., PBR) […] so as to correct the unfairness between communication of the split EPS bearer and communication of the non-split EPS bearer ; Col 13 ln 41-58 See claim 1; Col 13 60-67, Col 14 ln 1-5, 20-21 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per Col13 ln 22-24 […] the MeNB 11 may update a parameter(s) related to the LCP procedure applied to generation of uplink MAC PDUs (e.g., PBR) and per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. The LCH #1 is assigned a highest priority (first priority) and PBR1. The LCH #2 is assigned a second priority and PBR2. reads on: wherein the adjusting is performed , per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. In accordance with the uplink PBR procedure specified in the LTE standards, resources up to the PBR1 are first allocated to the LCH #1 which is of the highest priority, i.e. and then resources up to the PBR2 are allocated for the LCH #2 reads on: based at least in part on whether the second logical channel has high priority data in an associated transmit buffer per Col13 ln 22-24 for related to the LCP procedure applied to generation of uplink MAC PDUs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, further with the teachings of Futaki, since Futaki enables an improvement in control of an access stratum when dual connectivity involving a bearer split is performed (Futaki - Col 4 ln 59-61).
Regarding Claim 12. Madan teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 step 806 & FIG. 1-3 & per 0034 i.e. access point 102 can allocate a plurality of resources and related logical channels reads on: A method for wireless communication i.e. to wireless device 104 reads on: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) i.e. for communicating with the wireless network),
comprising: a processor; and memory coupled with the processor, the processor and memory configured to (Madan FIG. 11 & ¶0070 […]mobile terminal 1102 can comprise […] Processor 1114 can be coupled to memory 1116, which can store data and/or program codes related to mobile terminal 1102.;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. mobile terminal 1102 can comprise i.e. Processor 1114 can be coupled to memory 1116 reads on: comprising: a processor; and memory coupled with the processor, the processor and memory i.e. which can store data and/or program codes related to mobile terminal reads on: configured to ):
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 12 associates with the UE of claim 1, and claim 12 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 12. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
receive an uplink grant that indicates a resource allocation for an uplink communication from the UE to a network entity, the resource allocation for distribution among at least two logical channels including a first logical channel that has a higher priority than a second logical channel, wherein a distribution scheme provides a first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel and the first amount exceeds a threshold value; adjust the distribution scheme to provide an adjusted first amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a first amount of control information to be transmitted on the first logical channel, and to provide a second amount of the resource allocation to the second logical channel, the second amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a second amount of control information to be transmitted on the second logical channel; and transmit one or more transport blocks that include the first amount of control information for the first logical channel and the second amount of control information for the second logical channel(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 12 associates with the UE of claim 1, and claim 12 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 12. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 13. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 13 associates with the UE of Claim 2, and Claim 13 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 13. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein the processor and memory are further configured to(Madan FIG. 11 & ¶0070 See claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. mobile terminal 1102 can comprise i.e. Processor 1114 can be coupled to memory 1116 reads on: the processor and memory are i.e. which can store data and/or program codes related to mobile terminal reads on: further configured to ): re-adjust the distribution scheme to provide a remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel, and wherein the one or more transport blocks include additional uplink data for at least the first logical channel based at least in part on the remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 13 associates with the UE of Claim 2, and Claim 13 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 13. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 14. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 14 associates with the UE of Claim 3, and Claim 14 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 14. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein, to adjust the distribution scheme, the processor and memory are configured to(Madan FIG. 11 & ¶0070 See claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. mobile terminal 1102 can comprise i.e. Processor 1114 can be coupled to memory 1116 reads on: the processor and memory are i.e. which can store data and/or program codes related to mobile terminal reads on: configured to ): update a first prioritized bit rate (PBR) of the first logical channel to correspond to the first amount of control information; and update a second PBR of the second logical channel to correspond to the second amount of control information (See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 14 associates with the UE of Claim 3, and Claim 14 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 14. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) .
Regarding Claim 16. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 16 associates with the UE of Claim 5, and Claim 16 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 16. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein, to adjust the distribution scheme, the processor and memory are configured to (Madan FIG. 11 & ¶0070 See claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. mobile terminal 1102 can comprise i.e. Processor 1114 can be coupled to memory 1116 reads on: the processor and memory are i.e. which can store data and/or program codes related to mobile terminal reads on: configured to ): adjust, for each logical channel of the at least two logical channels, a prioritized bit rate (PBR) to correspond to a minimum of a current PBR or a corresponding amount of control information that is to be transmitted on the associated logical channel(See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 16 associates with the UE of Claim 5, and Claim 16 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 16. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 17. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 6, Claim 17 associates with the UE of Claim 6, and Claim 17 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 6, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 6 applies similarly to Claim 17. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)wherein the first amount of control information corresponds to a first number of bytes in a first high priority traffic protocol data unit (PDU) of the first logical channel, and the second amount of control information corresponds to a second number of bytes in a second high priority traffic PDU of the second logical channel(See the rejection of Claim 6, Claim 17 associates with the UE of Claim 6, and Claim 17 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 6, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 6 applies similarly to Claim 17. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 18. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 7, Claim 18 associates with the UE of Claim 7, and Claim 18 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 7, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 7 applies similarly to Claim 18. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein a highest priority logical channel of the two or more logical channels is provided with any remaining resources of the resource allocation prior to distributing any resources of the resource allocation to any lower priority logical channels (See the rejection of Claim 7, Claim 18 associates with the UE of Claim 7, and Claim 18 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 7, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 7 applies similarly to Claim 18. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 19. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 8, Claim 19 associates with the UE of Claim 8, and Claim 19 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 8, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 8 applies similarly to Claim 19. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein the processor and memory are further configured to(Madan FIG. 11 & ¶0070 See claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. mobile terminal 1102 can comprise i.e. Processor 1114 can be coupled to memory 1116 reads on: the processor and memory are i.e. which can store data and/or program codes related to mobile terminal reads on: further configured to ): form the one or more transport blocks in accordance with the distribution scheme for transmission to the network entity(See the rejection of Claim 8, Claim 19 associates with the UE of Claim 8, and Claim 19 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 8, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 8 applies similarly to Claim 19. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 20. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 9, Claim 20 associates with the UE of Claim 9, and Claim 20 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 9, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 9 applies similarly to Claim 20. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein the adjustment to the distribution scheme is performed based at least in part on whether the second logical channel has a radio link control (RLC) control protocol data unit (PDU) or high priority data in an associated transmit buffer(See the rejection of Claim 9, Claim 20 associates with the UE of Claim 9, and Claim 20 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 9, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 9 applies similarly to Claim 20. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 23. Madan teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Madan FIG. 1, Fig. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 8 & ¶0034 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 step 806 & FIG. 1-3 & per 0034 i.e. access point 102 can allocate a plurality of resources and related logical channels reads on: A method for wireless communication i.e. to wireless device 104 reads on: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) i.e. for communicating with the wireless network),
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 23 associates with the UE of claim 1, and Claim 23 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 23. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
comprising: means for receiving (Madan FIG. 11 ¶0070 […] receiver 1110 can be operatively associated with a demodulator (Demod) 1112 that demodulates received information. Demodulated symbols can then be analyzed by a processor 1114; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. receiver 1110 coupled to processor reads on: means for receiving ) an uplink grant that indicates a resource allocation for an uplink communication from the UE to a network entity, the resource allocation for distribution among at least two logical channels including a first logical channel that has a higher priority than a second logical channel, wherein a distribution scheme provides a first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel and the first amount exceeds a threshold value; means for adjusting (Madan FIG. 11 ¶0070 See above processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, and/or other similar and appropriate methodologies; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, and/or other similar and appropriate methodologies reads on: means for adjusting) the distribution scheme to provide an adjusted first amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a first amount of control information to be transmitted on the first logical channel, and to provide a second amount of the resource allocation to the second logical channel, the second amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a second amount of control information to be transmitted on the second logical channel; and means for transmitting (Madan FIG. 11 ¶0070 See above […] processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, and/or other similar and appropriate methodologies […] Mobile terminal 1102 can also employ one or more components described in previous figures to effectuate the described functionality; in one example, the components can be implemented by the processor 1114. Mobile terminal 1102 can also include a modulator 1118 that can multiplex a signal for transmission by a transmitter 1120 through antenna(s) 1108; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. the processor 1114 depicted as coupled to a modulator 1118 that can multiplex a signal for transmission by a transmitter 1120 through antenna(s) 1108 reads on: means for transmitting) one or more transport blocks that include the first amount of control information for the first logical channel and the second amount of control information for the second logical channel(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 23 associates with the UE of claim 1, and Claim 23 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 23. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) .
Regarding Claim 24. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 23,
(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 24 associates with the UE of Claim 2, and Claim 24 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 24. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) further comprising: means for re-adjusting (Madan FIG. 11 ¶0070 See Claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, and/or other similar and appropriate methodologies reads on: means for re-adjusting) the distribution scheme to provide a remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel, and means for (Madan FIG. 11 ¶0070 See Claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, and/or other similar and appropriate methodologies reads on: means for wherein the one or more transport blocks include additional uplink data) wherein the one or more transport blocks include additional uplink data for at least the first logical channel based at least in part on the remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation (See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 24 associates with the UE of Claim 2, and Claim 24 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 24. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 25. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 23,
(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 25 associates with the UE of Claim 3, and Claim 25 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 25. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein the means for the adjusting (Madan FIG. 11 ¶0070 See Claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, and/or other similar and appropriate methodologies reads on: means for the adjusting) comprise: means for updating(Madan FIG. 11 ¶0070 See Claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, and/or other similar and appropriate methodologies reads on: means for updating) a first prioritized bit rate (PBR) of the first logical channel to correspond to the first amount of control information; and means for updating (Madan FIG. 11 ¶0070 See Claim 23; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, and/or other similar and appropriate methodologies reads on: means for updating) a second PBR of the second logical channel to correspond to the second amount of control information(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 25 associates with the UE of Claim 3, and Claim 25 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 25. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 27. Madan teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor (Madan FIG. 11 & ¶0070 […]mobile terminal 1102 can comprise […] Processor 1114 can be coupled to memory 1116, which can store data and/or program codes related to mobile terminal 1102.;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0070 i.e. mobile terminal 1102 can comprise i.e. Processor 1114 can be coupled to i.e. memory 1116 reads on: A non-transitory computer-readable medium i.e. which can store data and/or program codes reads on: storing code related i.e. to mobile terminal such as per ¶0034 i.e. to wireless device 104 reads on: for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), i.e. store data and/or program codes and i.e. employ processor 1114 to perform methodologies 500, 600, 700, 800, reads on: the code comprising instructions executable by a processor )
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 27 associates with the UE of claim 1, and Claim 27 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 27. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) to: receive an uplink grant that indicates a resource allocation for an uplink communication from the UE to a network entity, the resource allocation for distribution among at least two logical channels including a first logical channel that has a higher priority than a second logical channel, wherein a distribution scheme provides a first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel and the first amount exceeds a threshold value; adjust the distribution scheme to provide an adjusted first amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a first amount of control information to be transmitted on the first logical channel, and to provide a second amount of the resource allocation to the second logical channel, the second amount of the resource allocation corresponding to a second amount of control information to be transmitted on the second logical channel; and transmit one or more transport blocks that include the first amount of control information for the first logical channel and the second amount of control information for the second logical channel (See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 27 associates with the UE of claim 1, and Claim 27 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 27. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 28. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27,
(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 28 associates with the UE of Claim 2, and Claim 28 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 28. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to: re-adjust the distribution scheme to provide a remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation to the first logical channel, and wherein the one or more transport blocks include additional uplink data for at least the first logical channel based at least in part on the remaining portion of the first amount of the resource allocation(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 28 associates with the UE of Claim 2, and Claim 28 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 28. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 29. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27,
(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 29 associates with the UE of Claim 3, and Claim 29 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 29. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein the instructions to adjusting are executable by the processor to: update a first prioritized bit rate (PBR) of the first logical channel to correspond to the first amount of control information; and update a second PBR of the second logical channel to correspond to the second amount of control information (See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 29 associates with the UE of Claim 3, and Claim 29 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 29. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) .
Regarding Claim 30. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27,
wherein the instructions to adjusting are executable by the processor to: (See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 30 associates with the UE of Claim 5, and Claim 30 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 30. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) adjust, for each logical channel of the at least two logical channels, a prioritized bit rate (PBR) to correspond to a minimum of a current PBR or a corresponding amount of control information that is to be transmitted on the associated logical channel (See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 30 associates with the UE of Claim 5, and Claim 30 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 30. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
13. Claims 4, 15, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, further in view of LU et al. (WO 2021081908 A1) i.e. “LU”.
Regarding Claim 4. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Rossbach teaches: wherein the first amount of control information and the second amount of control information occupy the resource allocation (Rossbach ¶0091 See claim 1; ¶0092 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0091 i.e. increasing the LCH priority of i.e. an LCH mapped to the PUSCH with HARQ-ACK reads on: wherein the first amount of control information , i.e. and in accordance with a determination that the UCI carries CSI, increasing the LCH priority of an LCH mapped to the PUSCH with CSI reads on: and the second amount of control information, where per FIG. 8 steps 810, 820, and 820 i.e. Creating a MAC PDU for PUSCH where per ¶0149 MAC can prioritize UCI with HARQ-ACK and handle UCI with CSI reads on: occupy the resource allocation);
Mandan in view of Futaki and Rossbach does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest ( i.e. See italicized portions of claim limitations): wherein the first amount of information and the second amount of information occupy a first subset of the resource allocation, and wherein the method further comprises: distributing a second subset of the resource allocation among the at least two logical channels based at least in part on an original prioritized bit rate associated with each logical channel of the at least two logical channels.
LU teaches: wherein the first amount of information and the second amount of information occupy a first subset of the resource allocation,
and wherein the method further comprises: distributing a second subset of the resource allocation among the at least two logical channels based at least in part on an original prioritized bit rate associated with each logical channel of the at least two logical channels (LU ¶0148 FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of still another method for multiplexing uplink logical channels according to an embodiment of this application. As shown in FIG. 8, it is assumed here that the UE establishes four uplink logical channels, which are respectively referred to as LC 1, LC 2, LC 3, and LC 4. The UE receives the RRC configuration sent by the network device. According to the RRC configuration, the terminal device determines that the order of the configuration priorities of the four logical channels is LC 1 > LC 2 > LC 3 > LC 4, and at the same time, the terminal device may further determine the PBR and the BHB of each uplink logical channel; ¶0149 When the UE receives the UL grant from the network to indicate the uplink initial transmission, as shown in FIG. 8, the UE completes logical channel multiplexing according to the following steps; ¶0152 sequentially LC 2, LC 3, LC 1, and LC 4 are allocated resources satisfying the PBR, and the number of tokens in the PBR token buckets of the four logical channels is updated according to the resource allocation result; ¶0153 […] the second round of resource allocation continues to be performed, that is, the remaining resources are allocated to LC 2, LC 3, LC 1, and LC 4 in sequence according to the remaining amount of data and the remaining amount of resources;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 depicting resources and per ¶0149 When the UE receives the UL grant from the network to indicate the uplink initial transmission, as shown in FIG. 8, the UE completes logical channel multiplexing according to the following steps per ¶0152 i.e. first round of resource allocation i.e. sequentially LC 2, LC 3, LC 1, and LC 4 are allocated resources satisfying the PBR to first part of resources reads on: wherein the first amount of information and the second amount of information occupy a first subset of the resource allocation . Furthermore and per ¶0153 i.e. the second round of resource allocation continues to be performed, that is, the remaining resources are allocated to LC 2, LC 3, LC 1, and LC 4 in sequence reads on: and wherein the method further comprises: distributing a second subset of the resource allocation among the at least two logical channels , where per ¶0148 i.e. the order of the configuration priorities of the four logical channels is LC 1 > LC 2 > LC 3 > LC 4 and per ¶0152 i.e. sequentially LC 2, LC 3, LC 1, and LC 4 are allocated resources satisfying the PBR, where the same sequence is depicted in FIG. 8 between the first round and second round of allocation reads on: based at least in part on an original prioritized bit rate associated with each logical channel of the at least two logical channels ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, with teachings of LU, since LU provides a resource allocation method for an uplink logical channel, and a terminal device, to reasonably determine resource allocation priorities of different logical channels and improve transmission efficiency. (LU ¶0007).
Regarding Claim 15. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 15 associates with the UE of Claim 4, and Claim 15 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 15. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein the first amount of control information and the second amount of control information occupy a first subset of the resource allocation, and the processor and memory are further configured to: distribute a second subset of the resource allocation among the at least two logical channels based at least in part on an original prioritized bit rate associated with each logical channel of the at least two logical channels(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 15 associates with the UE of Claim 4, and Claim 15 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 15. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 26. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 23,
(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 26 associates with the UE of Claim 4, and Claim 26 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 26. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
wherein the first amount of control information and the second amount of control information occupy a first subset of the resource allocation, the apparatus further comprising: means for distributing a second subset of the resource allocation among the at least two logical channels based at least in part on an original prioritized bit rate associated with each logical channel of the at least two logical channels(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 26 associates with the UE of Claim 4, and Claim 26 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 26. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
14. Claims 10, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, further in view of Yu et al. (US 20190223196 A1) i.e. “Yu”.
Regarding Claim 10. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Futaki teaches: wherein the adjusting is performed based at least in part on whether the first logical channel has a prioritized bit rate (PBR) that is set (Futaki FIG. 7, FIGS. 8A to 8C & Col 2 ln 60-64 See claim 1; Col13 ln 22-27 […] the MeNB 11 may update a parameter(s) related to the LCP procedure applied to generation of uplink MAC PDUs (e.g., PBR) […] so as to correct the unfairness between communication of the split EPS bearer and communication of the non-split EPS bearer ; Col 13 ln 41-58 See claim 1; Col 13 60-67, Col 14 ln 1-5, 20-21 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per Col13 ln 22-24 […] the MeNB 11 may update a parameter(s) related to the LCP procedure applied to generation of uplink MAC PDUs (e.g., PBR) and per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. The LCH #1 is assigned a highest priority (first priority) and PBR1. The LCH #2 is assigned a second priority and PBR2. reads on: wherein the adjusting is performed , per Col 13 ln 41-58 i.e. In accordance with the uplink PBR procedure specified in the LTE standards, resources up to the PBR1 are first allocated to the LCH #1 which is of the highest priority reads on: based at least in part on whether the first logical channel has a prioritized bit rate (PBR) that is set, i.e. and then resources up to the PBR2 are allocated for the LCH #2 i.e., per Col13 ln 22-24 for related to the LCP procedure applied to generation of uplink MAC PDUs).
Mandan in view of Futaki and Rossbach does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest ( i.e. See italicized portions of claim limitations): a prioritized bit rate (PBR) that is set to infinity;
Yu teaches: wherein the adjusting is performed based at least in part on whether the first logical channel has a prioritized bit rate (PBR) that is set to infinity (Yu FIG. 2 FIG. 3 FIG. 6 & ¶105 […] the terminal device sends the BSR on the uplink scheduling resource. Finally, the network device sends, to the terminal device, an uplink scheduling resource used for sending the uplink data. Because a total quantity of uplink scheduling resources used for sending the uplink data is determined, the terminal device needs to determine, according to a specific rule, a quantity of uplink scheduling resources that can be allocated to each logical channel. Usually, the terminal device determines, based on a PBR scheduled for the logical channel or an LCP scheduled for the logical channel by using a token bucket algorithm, the quantity of uplink scheduling resources that can be allocated to each logical channel; ¶0106 […] in FIG. 3, it is assumed that there are four logical channel priorities in a terminal device, a smaller value of an LCP is corresponding to a higher priority, and different priorities are corresponding to different values of PBRs scheduled for logical channels (to be specific, the four logical channel priorities in FIG. 3 sequentially decrease from left to right). A URLLC service has a relatively high requirement on a service latency and service reliability. Therefore, it is assumed that a high priority 1 is configured for the URLLC service, and the PBR is set to infinity […]
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0105 i.e. the terminal device determines, based on a PBR scheduled for the logical channel or an LCP scheduled for the logical channel by using a token bucket algorithm, the quantity of uplink scheduling resources that can be allocated to each logical channel reads on: wherein the adjusting is performed , where per FIG. 3 & ¶106 i.e. there are four logical channel priorities in a terminal device, a smaller value of an LCP is corresponding to a higher priority, and different priorities are corresponding to different values of PBRs scheduled for logical channels i.e. A URLLC service has a relatively high requirement on a service latency and service reliability. Therefore, it is assumed that a high priority 1 is configured for the URLLC service, and the PBR is set to infinity for I.e. Logical channel 1 as depicted reads on: based at least in part on whether the first logical channel has a prioritized bit rate (PBR) that is set to infinity ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, with teachings of Yu, since Yu enables procedures where logical channel scheduling indication in which the indication of the PBR scheduled for the logical channel or the indication of the LCP is sent by using a control message, an RRC reconfiguration procedure required by the logical channel configuration is avoided, so that transmission performance of the terminal device is improved while RRC signaling overheads are reduced (Yu ¶0008).
Regarding Claim 21. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 10, Claim 21 associates with the UE of Claim 10, and Claim 21 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 10, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 10 applies similarly to Claim 21. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein the adjustment to the distribution scheme is performed based at least in part on whether the first logical channel has a prioritized bit rate (PBR) that is set to infinity(See the rejection of Claim 10, Claim 21 associates with the UE of Claim 10, and Claim 21 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 10, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 10 applies similarly to Claim 21. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
15. Claims 11, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, further in view of YI et al. (US 20190159229 A1) i.e. “YI”.
Regarding Claim 11. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore Madan teaches: wherein the adjustment to the distribution scheme prevents a bearer release of the second logical channel by providing resources for at least the second amount of control information for the second logical channel (Madan - ¶0034 See claim 1; ¶0037 […] this can include modifying the scheduling policy to allocate additional resources to a logical channel where a PBR is increased, reduce resources where a PBR is decreased, etc. […]; ¶0047 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0037 i.e. modifying the scheduling policy to allocate additional resources to a logical channel reads on: wherein the adjustment to the distribution scheme i.e. allocate additional resources to a logical channel where a PBR is increased as applied to where per ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels reads on: prevents a bearer release of the second logical channel, per ¶0037 modifying the scheduling policy to allocate additional resources reads on: by providing resources ¶0047 i.e. modify PBRs for the one or more logical channels and where per ¶0034 i.e. the logical channels can include PUCCH reads on: for at least the second amount of control information for the second logical channel );
While Madan teaches modifying the scheduling policy to allocate additional resources to a logical channel which implies prevents a bearer release of the one or more logical channels which includes the second logical channel which can be a PUCCH, assuming arguendo Madan implies prevents a bearer release, i.e.
Mandan in view of Futaki and Rossbach does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest ( i.e. See italicized portions of claim limitations): distribution scheme prevents a bearer release of the logical channel
YI teaches: wherein the adjustment to the distribution scheme prevents a bearer release of the second logical channel by providing resources for at least the second amount of information for the second logical channel (FIG. 6 & ¶103 […] allocating uplink resources to logical channels according to a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure; ¶0104 […] FIG. 6, “P” denotes a priority value for a logical channel (LoCH). Referring to FIG. 6, for example, a priority value for LoCH1, a priority value for LoCH2 and a priority value for LoCH3 are 1, 3 and 5, respectively. LoCH1, LoCH2 and LoCH3 are allocated resources of the UL grant in a decreasing priority order according to priority bit rate 1 (PBR1), priority bit rate 2 (PBR2) and priority bit rate (PBR3), respectively. In other words, LoCH1 of the lowest priority value is allocated resource of the UL grant first as much as the amount of PBR1, then LoCH2 of the second lowest priority value is allocated resource of the UL grant as much as the amount of PBR2, and then LoCH3 of the highest priority value is allocated resource of the U grant as much as the amount of PBR3. The remaining resources of the UL grant, excluding resources corresponding to those of PBR1, PBR2 and PBR3, are then allocated to LoCH1, LoCH2 and LoCH3 in an decreasing priority order;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0103 i.e. allocating uplink resources to logical channels according to a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure reads on: wherein the adjustment to the distribution scheme as applied to ¶0104 i.e. LoCH1, LoCH2 and LoCH3 are allocated resources of the UL grant in a decreasing priority order according to priority bit rate 1 (PBR1), priority bit rate 2 (PBR2) and priority bit rate (PBR3), and then per ¶0104 i.e. The remaining resources of the UL grant, excluding resources corresponding to those of PBR1, PBR2 and PBR3, are then allocated to LoCH1, LoCH2 reads on: prevents a bearer release of the second logical channel by providing resources for at least the second amount of information for the second logical channel ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach, with teachings of YI, since YI enables radio communication signals be efficiently transmitted/received, and therefore, overall throughput of a radio communication system can be improved (YI ¶0022).
Regarding Claim 22. Madan in view of Futaki and Rossbach teaches: The apparatus of claim 12,
(See the rejection of Claim 11, Claim 22 associates with the UE of Claim 11, and Claim 22 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 11, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 11 applies similarly to Claim 22. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein the adjustment to the distribution scheme prevents a bearer release of the second logical channel by providing resources for at least the second amount of control information for the second logical channel(See the rejection of Claim 11, Claim 22 associates with the UE of Claim 11, and Claim 22 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 11, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 11 applies similarly to Claim 22. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALICK A SOHRAB whose telephone number is (571)272-4347. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fri 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached on (571) 272-7884. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2414
08/20/2026
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights