DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 6, and 10, “packet data budget (PDB)” should be changed to “packet delay budget (PDB)”. This matches the language used in the specification (see [0199], for example).
In claim 4, the phrase “the method of claim 2” should be changed to “the method of claim 3”. This would match the claim tree under claim 10 and avoid a potential lack of antecedent basis issue for “the lifetime” in line 4 of claim 4. For purposes of compact prosecution, the art rejections below assume the above change.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al (US 2025/0008508).
Regarding claim 1: Wu discloses a method comprising:
receiving a configuration related to scheduling request (SR) resources (disclosed throughout; see [0211], which discloses that “the base station configures a dedicated SR resource for a case where there is a data packet, having a remaining PDB with a remaining PDB value smaller than the predetermined threshold, in the buffer of each LCG (or LCH)”; the UE that transmits using this configured SR resource clearly receives the configuration from the base station);
based on uplink data for a logical channel becoming available for transmission at a user equipment (UE), determining an SR resource related to the logical channel based on the configuration (disclosed throughout; see [0211], for example, which discloses “if there is a data packet, having a remaining PDB with a remaining PDB value smaller than the predetermined threshold, in the buffer, the UE uses a corresponding SR resource”; the uplink data is the data packet and the SR resource is the dedicated resource corresponding to the configuration (having a remaining PDB value smaller than a threshold) for the corresponding logical channel (LCH)); and
transmitting an SR on the SR resource (disclosed throughout; see [0211], for example, which discloses that “the UE transmits an SR to request an uplink scheduling…the UE uses a corresponding SR resource”),
wherein transmitting the SR on the SR resource comprises transmitting information related to a remaining packet data budget (PDB) of the uplink data (disclosed throughout; see [0210], which indicates “[t]he remaining PDB is indicated by a dedicated Scheduling Request (SR) resource”; see also [0211], which indicates “when the UE transmits an SR to request for an uplink scheduling and if there is a data packet, having a remaining PDB with a remaining PDB value smaller than the predetermined threshold, in the buffer, the UE uses a corresponding SR resource”).
Regarding claim 6: Wu discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising:
at least one transceiver (see transceiver 310 of Figure 3a, for example);
at least one processor (see processor 340 of Figure 3a, for example); and
at least one computer memory operably connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (see memory 360 of Figure 3a and at least [0069]-[0071], for example):
receiving a configuration related to scheduling request (SR) resources (disclosed throughout; see [0211], which discloses that “the base station configures a dedicated SR resource for a case where there is a data packet, having a remaining PDB with a remaining PDB value smaller than the predetermined threshold, in the buffer of each LCG (or LCH)”; the UE that transmits using this configured SR resource clearly receives the configuration from the base station);
based on uplink data for a logical channel becoming available for transmission at the UE, determining an SR resource related to the logical channel based on the configuration (disclosed throughout; see [0211], for example, which discloses “if there is a data packet, having a remaining PDB with a remaining PDB value smaller than the predetermined threshold, in the buffer, the UE uses a corresponding SR resource”; the uplink data is the data packet and the SR resource is the dedicated resource corresponding to the configuration (having a remaining PDB value smaller than a threshold) for the corresponding logical channel (LCH)); and
transmitting an SR on the SR resource (disclosed throughout; see [0211], for example, which discloses that “the UE transmits an SR to request an uplink scheduling…the UE uses a corresponding SR resource”),
wherein transmitting the SR on the SR resource comprises transmitting information related to a remaining packet data budget (PDB) of the uplink data (disclosed throughout; see [0210], which indicates “[t]he remaining PDB is indicated by a dedicated Scheduling Request (SR) resource”; see also [0211], which indicates “when the UE transmits an SR to request for an uplink scheduling and if there is a data packet, having a remaining PDB with a remaining PDB value smaller than the predetermined threshold, in the buffer, the UE uses a corresponding SR resource”).
Regarding claim 10: Wu discloses a base station (BS) comprising:
at least one transceiver (see transceivers 372 of Figure 3b, for example);
at least one processor (see processor 378 of Figure 3b, for example); and
at least one computer memory operably connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (see memory 380 of Figure 3b and at least [0077]-[0080], for example):
transmitting a configuration related to scheduling request (SR) resources (disclosed throughout; see [0211], which discloses that “the base station configures a dedicated SR resource for a case where there is a data packet, having a remaining PDB with a remaining PDB value smaller than the predetermined threshold, in the buffer of each LCG (or LCH)”); and
receiving an SR on an SR resource related to a logical channel based on the configuration resource (disclosed throughout; see [0211], for example, which discloses that “the UE transmits an SR to request an uplink scheduling…the UE uses a corresponding SR resource”),
wherein receiving the SR on the SR resource comprises receiving information related to a remaining packet data budget (PDB) of uplink data of a user equipment (UE) (disclosed throughout; see [0210], which indicates “[t]he remaining PDB is indicated by a dedicated Scheduling Request (SR) resource”; see also [0211], which indicates “when the UE transmits an SR to request for an uplink scheduling and if there is a data packet, having a remaining PDB with a remaining PDB value smaller than the predetermined threshold, in the buffer, the UE uses a corresponding SR resource”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2025/0008508) in view of Ma et al (US 2024/0089959).
Regarding claims 2 and 11: Wu discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 10 as indicated above. Wu does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 2 and 11 that the SR resource is configured with physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) format 2, PUCCH format 3, or PUCCH format 4. However, Ma discloses analogous art including scheduling request resource configuration. Further, Ma discloses that PUCCH for an SR can be one of five formats, including PUCCH format 2, PUCCH format 3, PUCCH format 2 (see [0069], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wu to utilize the various PUCCH formats (including formats 2-4) for transmitting the scheduling requests as suggested by Ma. The rationale for doing so would have been to group together different scheduling request (SR) configurations utilizing different PUCCH formats as suggested by Ma in [0069].
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2025/0008508) in view of Feuersaenger et al (US 2021/0014723).
Regarding claims 3 and 12: Wu discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 10 as indicated above. Wu does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 3 and 10 of receiving/transmitting scheduling information including an uplink grant in response to the SR, wherein the scheduling information includes information regarding a lifetime related to the uplink grant. However, sending information regarding a lifetime related to an uplink grant in response to the scheduling request is known in the art. Consider Feuersaenger, which discloses in [0052], for example, “[a] scheduling grant message contains at least information which part of the frequency band the UE is allowed to use, the validity period of the grant…”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wu to include a lifetime (validity period) related to the uplink grant when sending the uplink grant in response to the scheduling request. The rationale for doing so would have been to conserve resources and allow the resources to be shared with other users by limiting the time one grant can assign resources to a particular user without another request.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2025/0008508) in view of Feuersaenger et al (US 2021/0014723) in view of Lee et al (US 2025/0287381).
Regarding claims 4 and 13: Wu, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 3 and 12 as indicated above. Wu does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 4 and 13 of transmitting/receiving a transport block including the uplink data on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on the uplink grant; and based on expiration of the lifetime related to the uplink grant, clearing hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process information related to the transport block and a buffer related to the HARQ process information. However, Feuersaenger discloses that the transmission in response to a scheduled uplink resource following a scheduling request/uplink grant sequence can be performed by transmitting a transport block via a PUSCH. For example, see [0253], which discloses the transmission of data using a transport block on a PUSCH resource. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wu, modified, to explicitly indicate that the scheduled uplink resources are utilized by transmitting the uplink data using a transport block on a PUSCH as taught by Feuersaenger. The rationale for doing so would have been to improve the interoperability of the devices in Wu by utilizing standard communication protocols used by many other user devices.
Wu, modified above, does not explicitly disclose the limitation based on expiration of the lifetime related to the uplink grant, clearing hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process information related to the transport block and a buffer related to the HARQ process information. However, Lee discloses flushing a buffer of a corresponding HARQ process when a configured grant timer (lifetime) expires (see [0284] and [0292], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to clear the HARQ process information and buffer when the validity period/lifetime of the grant expires in a manner similar to that suggested in Lee. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure the HARQ process resources can be reused after expiration of the time allotted to the grant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leung et al (US 2024/0107476) discloses a method for supporting inter-media synchronization that includes adding assistance information including a remaining PDB to a scheduling request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights