DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 05/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding trigger, for a logical channel within the LCG, the DSR based on a shortest remaining time, among one or more remaining times of one or more data units buffered for the logical channel, being less than the threshold value. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Rao teach, “The WTRU may send/report the pose measurements to network, periodically and/or when detecting event triggers (e.g., change in pose measurements above/below a threshold)”, see para. 99, for further clarification Rao teach, “To abide by the QoS constraints (e.g., PDU set delay bound (PSDB) and/or if a PDU set error rate (PSER)) is to be met, the WTRU may be configured to report (e.g., on a timely basis) the information regarding the XR traffic (e.g., timing/delay info and/or payload info of PDU sets) to the network (e.g., base station) such that scheduling and/or resource allocation may be performed efficiently… A WTRU may trigger scheduling request (SR)Zbuffer status report (BSR), e.g., based on the triggering conditions associated with XR data units. A WTRU may determine to trigger an indication (e.g., SR/BSR) based on the arrival time of the XR data unit (e.g., PDU set, data burst) and/or the priority associated with the data unit. The WTRU may be configured to receive configuration information. The configuration information may include: one or more configurations and/or parameters associated LCHs; and/or one or more delay threshold values (e.g., difference between the time of arrival of a PDU set (e.g., time slot) and the PDU set delay bound (PSDB) associated with the PDU set)” see para. 80-84. The Examiner notes that Rao clearly discloses the prioritization of the data, specially QoS data, being consider for transmission in the buffer and adapting this transmission based on the many parameters and also including different threshold values configured to be in various cases either above or below the value of said threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Rao to teach this concept. Thus, Rao still meet the scope of the limitations.
B. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 states that are not being disclosed by Wang, regarding cancel the triggered DSR in response to at least one of: one or more first data units, of the one or more data units, being discarded. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Wang teach, “The WTRU may cancel a pending (and/or triggered) QSR when the criterion that triggered the report is no longer met… For example, the WTRU may cancel a pending QSR/Delay report if the corresponding data is no longer in the WTRU's buffer”, see para. 334. for further clarification Wang teach, “This may occur either because the data has been included in a transport block for transmission over LTE, because transmission of the data using WiFi has been confirmed, or because the data has been discarded”, see para. 334. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Wang to teach the cancelation of a report whenever the criterion used to transmit it is not being met. Thus, Rao in view of Wang still meet the scope of the limitations.
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 of this title, 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2024097824) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170374579)
Regarding claim 1 Rao disclose a wireless device comprising: one or more processors read as: “The processor 118 may be a general purpose processor” see para. 37; and memory read as: “non-removable memory 130” see para. 34 storing instructions read as: “software", that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to:
receive a configuration parameter indicating a threshold value used for a delay status reporting (DSR) for a logical channel group (LCG) para. 84, “The WTRU may be configured to receive configuration information. The configuration information may include: one or more configurations and/or parameters associated LCHs; and/or one or more delay threshold values”;
trigger, for a logical channel within the LCG, the DSR based on a shortest remaining time, among one or more remaining times of one or more data units buffered for the logical channel, being less than the threshold value para. 99, “The WTRU may send/report the pose measurements to network, periodically and/or when detecting event triggers (e.g., change in pose measurements above/below a threshold)”,
wherein each of the one or more remaining times indicates when to discard a respective data unit of the one or more data units para. 229, “A WTRU may discard and/or drop the (e.g., any of the) data units that have been explicitly and/or implicitly indicated to be discarded and/or any of the conditions for discarding are met”; and
wherein a respective remaining time, of each of the one or more first data units, is less than the threshold value para. 307, “the remaining delay budget associated with the first set of one or more PDUs is less than the threshold”.
Rao does not specifically disclose, cancel the triggered DSR in response to at least one of. However, Wang teach, “The WTRU may cancel a pending (and/or triggered) QSR when the criterion that triggered the report is no longer met”, see para. 334: one or more first data units, of the one or more data units, being discarded para. 334, “For example, the WTRU may cancel a pending QSR/Delay report if the corresponding data is no longer in the WTRU's buffer”; or a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) being transmitted, comprising a DSR MAC control element (CE) indicating delay information of the one or more first data units. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Rao and Wang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to wireless transmission and configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang in the system of Rao to only transmit the sufficient amount of reporting data that that meets certain channel condition criteria. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the unnecessary channel occupation with possible corrupted data.
Regarding claim 2 Wang disclose, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to receive a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising the configuration parameter para. 101, “The WTRU may receive a configuration, including receiving RRC configuration from gNB”.
Regarding claim 3 Rao does not specifically disclose, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to cancel the triggered DSR further in response to a MAC entity, of the wireless device, being reset. However, Wang disclose, para. 335, “The WTRU may cancel all pending (and/or triggered) QSR when the WiFi interface is reset, reconfigured”.
Rao and Wang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to wireless transmission and configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang in the system of Rao to reduce occupying available resources while the terminal is being reconfigured. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the management of the available resources.
Regarding claim 4 Wang disclose, wherein the one or more first data units are associated with the DSR para. 173, “The information indicating that the second PDU set is prioritized over the first PDU set may be transmitted in a scheduling request (SR), a buffer status report (BSR), or a delay status report (DSR)”.
Regarding claim 5 Wang disclose, wherein the one or more first data units are associated with the DSR based on the DSR being triggered for the logical channel para. 119, “The one or more PDUs of the first PDU set may be mapped to a first logical channel (LCH)”; and
the one or more first data units being associated with the logical channel para. 263, “A WTRU may be configured to trigger and/or transmit a short BSR if the WTRU has data buffered in a (e.g, only one) LCG”.
Regarding claim 6 Wang disclose, wherein the DSR provides delay information, of the LCG, to a base station para. 157, “The information indicating that the second PDU set is prioritized over the first PDU set may be transmitted in a scheduling request (SR), a buffer status report (BSR), or a delay status report (DSR). The one or more PDUs of the first PDU set may be mapped to a first logical channel (LCH)”.
Regarding claim 7 Wang disclose, wherein the DSR MAC CE indicates at least one of an identifier of the LCG a remaining time of the LCG; or a buffer size of the LCG para. 295, “A WTRU may trigger an indication/report of the arrival of data units based on a status (e.g., status of a buffer, LCH, LCG, etc.)”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the last of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 8 Rao does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more first data units being discarded is based on at least one of:
one or more remaining times of the one or more first data units. However, Wang disclose para. 218, “For example, a data unit may be discarded due to excessive latency, or one or more transmissions may be reported as unsuccessful by the WiFi interface”;
one or more timers, associated with the one or more first data units, expiring; the one or more first data units being associated with a PDU set; or a PDU set importance, PSI, configuration. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Rao and Wang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to wireless transmission and configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang in the system of Rao to only transmit the sufficient amount of reporting data that that meets certain channel condition criteria. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the unnecessary channel occupation with possible corrupted data.
Regarding claim 9 Rao does not specifically disclose, wherein the configuration parameter indicates an identifier of the LCG. However, Wang disclose, para. 295, “The happy bits may signal information related to a single Logical Channel Group (LCG) and/or bearer, or to the aggregation of a plurality, of LCGs and/or bearers configured with UL split”, para. 314, “The WTRU may include in the report the identity of the item (e.g., a LCH or a LCG)”.
Rao and Wang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to wireless transmission and configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang in the system of Rao so the system accurately recognizes the appropriated channel to be reported on. The motivation for doing so would have been to establish the configuration parameters associated with the group of channels to be measured.
Regarding claim 10 Wang disclose, wherein the threshold value is associated with a remaining time threshold para. 167, “The configuration information may comprise one or more threshold values associated one or more time threshold values (e.g., remaining time, buffering time, delay budget)”.
Regarding claim 11 Wang disclose, wherein a unit of the threshold value is in millisecond para. 84, “The configuration information may include: one or more configurations and/or parameters associated LCHs; and/or one or more delay threshold values (e.g., difference between the time of arrival of a PDU set (e.g., time slot) and the PSDB associated with the PDU set)”.
Regarding claim 12 Wang disclose, wherein the one or more first data units are associated with packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data units (SDUs) para. 240, “That data (e.g., all the data) corresponding to a (e.g., one) data unit (e.g., PDU set) may arrive at the WTRU (e.g., at PDCP sublayer in WTRU) at the same time, such that the PSDB becomes the same as the PDB of the individual PDCP SDUs”.
Regarding claim 13 Rao does not specifically disclose, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to cancel the triggered DSR further in response to a MAC PDU, comprising the one or more first data units, being transmitted. However, Wang disclose, para. 333, “The WTRU may cancel a pending (and/or triggered) QSR when the corresponding report has included in a MAC PDU for transmission on a transport block”.
Rao and Wang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to wireless transmission and configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang in the system of Rao so the system accurately recognizes the appropriated channel to be reported on. The motivation for doing so would have been to establish the configuration parameters associated with the group of channels to be measured.
Claim 14 recites a computer–program product corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 15-20 the limitations of claims 15-20, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 2-7, respectively.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/RAUL RIVAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights