DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Making Final
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The claim amendments regarding -- ‘the third PDCP SDU being different from the second PDCP SDU’ -- clearly change the literal scope of the independent and dependent claims and/or the range of equivalents for such claims. The said amendments alter the scope of the claims but do not overcome the disclosure by the prior art as shown below.
The Examiner is presenting new grounds for rejection as necessitated by the claim amendments and is thus making this action FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 1) ‘a second PDCP SDU belonging to a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) set that includes a third PDCP SDU …the third PDCP SDU being different from the second PDCP SDU’ (Lohr-Paragraph 88 , The definition of a PDU set in 3GPP is the following: one or more PDUs carrying the payload of one unit of information generated at the application level (e.g. frame(s) or video slice(s) etc. for XR Services) , Paragraph 94, If the packets are spread out, then the PDU set delay budget is measured either in terms of the arrival of the first packet of the PDU set or the last packet of the PDU set. In either case, a given PSDB will result in different PDB requirements on different packets of the PDU set.)
The Applicant presents the following argument(s) [in italics]:
…The relationship recited in amended claim 1 is between multiple PDCP SDUs that are within a single PDU set (i.e., the second PDCP SDU and the third PDCP SDU both belonging to the same PDU set), with the recited "second discard timer" being a discard timer of the third PDCP SDU. This is a fundamentally different granularity from Lohr's PDU-set-to-PDU-set inter-dependency. Nowhere does Lohr disclose, teach, or suggest that any PDCP SDU's classification as delay-critical is determined by the discard timer status of another, different PDCP SDU within the same PDU set…
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant.
The Examiner does not agree with the Applicant characterization of the prior art.
Lohr is not limited to PDU-set-to-PDU-set inter-dependency.
Lohr Paragraph 88 disclosed wherein the definition of a PDU set in 3GPP is one or more PDUs carrying the payload of one unit of information generated at the application level (e.g. frame(s) or video slice(s) etc. for XR Services) ,
Lohr Paragraph 94 disclosed wherein if the packets are spread out, then the PDU set delay budget is measured either in terms of the arrival of the first packet of the PDU set or the last packet of the PDU set. In either case, a given PSDB will result in different PDB requirements on different packets of the PDU set.
Priority
This application claims benefits of priority from Provisional Application 63/586194 filed September 28, 2023.
The effective date of the claims described in this application is September 28, 2023.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-9,11-17,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohr (USPGPUB 2025/0088895) further in view of Cheng (US PGPUB 2024/0114380)
Regarding Claim 1
Lohr Paragraph 37,Paragraph 54 disclosed avoiding unnecessary DSR reporting for the case where PSI-based discarding is applied due to congestion in the UL interface. The UE 104 determines whether to transmit DSR reports based on various criteria, such as whether congestion is present in the wireless communications system 100, whether DSR is enabled or disabled, PSI levels of PDU sets in a buffer of the UE 104 waiting to be transmitted to the NE 102, discard timer values associated with the different PSI levels
Lohr Figure 9,Paragraph 197-198 disclosed transmitting, to a UE, a first signaling indicating whether congestion is present in a wireless communications system and receiving, from the UE based at least in part on the first signaling indicating congestion is not present in the wireless communications system and on DSR being enabled, a second signaling indicating a DSR report for the UE.
Lohr disclosed (re. Claim 1) a method performed by a User Equipment (UE) for Delay Status Reporting (DSR), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station (BS), configuration information related to a Logical Channel Group (LCG) via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling;(Lohr-Figure 9,Paragraph 197-198, transmitting, to a UE, a first signaling indicating whether congestion is present in a wireless communications system )
triggering a DSR procedure; (Lohr-Figure 9,Paragraph 197-198, receiving, from the UE based at least in part on the first signaling indicating congestion is not present in the wireless communications system and on DSR being enabled, a second signaling indicating a DSR report for the UE)
While Lohr substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohr does not disclose (re. Claim 1) generating a DSR Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) comprising a first field indicating a buffer size for the LCG; transmitting the DSR MAC CE to the BS, wherein: the buffer size indicates a total amount of delay-critical data for the LCG, and the delay-critical data for the LCG comprises:
a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) Service Data Unit (SDU) for which a first discard timer has a remaining time value that is less than a time threshold associated with the LCG; and a second PDCP SDU belonging to a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) set that includes at least one PDCP SDU for which a second discard timer has a remaining time value that is less than the time threshold.
Cheng Figure 7,Paragraph 69,70 disclosed generating DSR signals and DSR formats with timing information.
Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 1) generating a DSR Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) comprising a first field indicating a buffer size for the LCG; (Cheng-Figure 10,Paragraph 69,Paragraph 70, DSR 1000 including a LCG ID 1010, a buffer size field 1020 indicating the BSR index (which can refer to the index value in the index field 810 as shown in FIG. 8 or any BSR table), and a timing information field 1030 indicating timing information to be reported by the UE 710 to the base station 720)
and
transmitting the DSR MAC CE to the BS,(Cheng-Paragraph 77, the UE reports, to the base station, a DSR to indicate a buffer size for data to be transmitted to the base station. The DSR includes timing information.)
Lohr and Cheng are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding DSR signaling mechanisms. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Cheng into Lohr. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable wherein a UE reports, to the base station, a delay status report (DSR) to indicate a buffer size for data to be transmitted to the base station.
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 1) wherein: the buffer size indicates a total amount of delay-critical data for the LCG, (Cheng-Paragraph 68 , for the XR traffic (with the latency requirement) ) and the delay-critical data for the LCG comprises:
a first Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) Service Data Unit (SDU) (Lohr-Paragraph 135, the amount of data associated with the remaining delay information includes only PDCP PDUs or service data units (SDUs) which have not been delivered to lower layer for transmission ) for which a first discard timer has a remaining time value that is less than a time threshold associated with the LCG; (Lohr-Paragraph 9, the UE triggers the transmission of the third signaling indicating a DSR report in response to a remaining delay of data for which the first discard timer configuration is applied becoming less than a predefined threshold ) and
a second PDCP SDU belonging to a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) set that includes at least one PDCP SDU (Lohr-Paragraph 9, DSR report indicates delay information for a first PDU set and delay information for a second PDU set that is inter-dependent on the first PDU set ) for which a second discard timer (Lohr-Paragraph 9, UE applies the second discard timer configuration for data that is associated with a low importance level ) has a remaining time value that is less than the time threshold. (Lohr-Paragraph 9, the UE triggers the transmission of the third signaling indicating a DSR report in response to a remaining delay of data for which the first discard timer configuration is applied becoming less than a predefined threshold )
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 1) ‘a second PDCP SDU belonging to a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) set that includes a third PDCP SDU …the third PDCP SDU being different from the second PDCP SDU’ (Lohr-Paragraph 88 , The definition of a PDU set in 3GPP is one or more PDUs carrying the payload of one unit of information generated at the application level (e.g. frame(s) or video slice(s) etc. for XR Services) , Paragraph 94, If the packets are spread out, then the PDU set delay budget is measured either in terms of the arrival of the first packet of the PDU set or the last packet of the PDU set. In either case, a given PSDB will result in different PDB requirements on different packets of the PDU set.)
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 (re. User Equipment) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17
Claim 17 (re. Base Station) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3,11
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 3,11) triggering the DSR in a case that a remaining time value of a discard timer associated with a PDCP SDU belonging to the LCG has become less than the time threshold and that no DSR procedure has been triggered. (Lohr-Paragraph 9, the UE triggers the transmission of the third signaling indicating a DSR report in response to a remaining delay of data for which the first discard timer configuration is applied becoming less than a predefined threshold )
Regarding Claim 4,12
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 4,12) determining the buffer size for the LCG based on either a first predefined table or a second predefined table. (Cheng-Figure 10,Paragraph 69,Paragraph 70, DSR 1000 including a LCG ID 1010, a buffer size field 1020 indicating the BSR index (which can refer to the index value in the index field 810 as shown in FIG. 8 or any BSR table), and a timing information field 1030 indicating timing information to be reported by the UE 710 to the base station 720)
Regarding Claim 5,13
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 5,13) wherein the first predefined table is for eXtended Reality (XR) services. (Cheng-Paragraph 68 , for the XR traffic (with the latency requirement), Paragraph 75, the UE 710 reports the DSR to the base station 720 in a connection supporting the XR application service. )
Regarding Claim 6,14
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 6,14) determining the buffer size for the LCG based on the first predefined table in response to receiving a table indication from the BS via the RRC signaling; (Cheng-Paragraph 71, The table index field 1080 is used to indicate or select, from the BSR tables available at the base station 720, a corresponding BSR table to be used.) and determining the buffer size for the LCG based on the second predefined table in a case that the table indication is not received from the BS. (Cheng-Paragraph 71, The table index field 1080 is used to indicate or select, from the BSR tables available at the base station 720, a corresponding BSR table to be used.)
Regarding Claim 7,15,19
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 7,15,19) wherein the DSR MAC CE further comprises a second field indicating a minimum remaining time of the delay-critical data for the LCG. (Lohr-Paragraph 9, the UE triggers the transmission of the third signaling indicating a DSR report in response to a remaining delay of data for which the first discard timer configuration is applied becoming less than a predefined threshold …UE applies the second discard timer configuration for data that is associated with a low importance level )
Regarding Claim 8,16,20
Lohr-Cheng disclosed (re. Claim 8,16,20) transmitting, to the BS, a Scheduling Request (SR) for requesting uplink resources for the transmission of the DSR MAC CE.(Cheng-figure 7,Paragraph 64, the UE 710 may send a scheduling request (SR) to the base station 720, and in response to the SR, at operation 750, the base station 720 sends a UL grant back to the UE 710 to configure the UE 710 with the UL resources)
Claim(s) 2,10,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohr (USPGPUB 2025/0088895) further in view of Cheng (US PGPUB 2024/0114380) further in view of Kuo (USPGPUB 20260059357)
Regarding Claim 2,10,18
While Lohr-Cheng substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohr-Cheng does not disclose (re. Claim 2,10,18) receiving, from the BS, the time threshold associated with the LCG via the RRC signaling.
Kuo Paragraph disclosed wherein user equipment (UE) may be pre-configured by a base station to manage the buffer via RRC signaling while in the RRC connected state.
Kuo disclosed (re. Claim 2,10,18) receiving, from the BS, the time threshold associated with the LCG via the RRC signaling.(Kuo-Paragraph 21, pre-configuration may include one or more expiry timers specifying one or more durations to store QoE measurements in the buffer before discarding. The one or more expiry timers may be used to determine when data is outdated and can be discarded.)
Lohr and Kuo are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding XR service reporting/signaling mechanisms. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Kuo into Lohr-Cheng. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable UE may discard the measurements if they are determined to be expired. (Kuo-Paragraph 23)
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/GREG C BENGZON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights