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 .
Claims 1-8 and 10-30 are pending in the present application.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 19, 22, 29, and 30 have been amended.
This paper is responsive to an RCE filed February 10, 2026.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have support in the originally-filed application and are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 19, 22, 29, and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
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 “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 “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 “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 “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 “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 “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.
Claim 30 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by reciting “means for”. The means are interpreted as limited by the specification “means”, for example, in para. [0145] of the specification, which recites:
“[0145] Various components of the communications device 1200 may provide means for performing the operations 800 described with respect to FIG. 8,or any aspect related to it. For example, means for transmitting, sending or outputting for transmission may include the transceivers 354 and/or antenna(s) 352 of the UE104 illustrated in FIG. 3 and/or transceiver 1208 and antenna 1210 of the communications device 1200 in FIG. 12. Means for receiving or obtaining may include the transceivers 354 and/or antenna(s) 352 of the UE 104 illustrated in FIG. 3 and/or transceiver 1408 and antenna 1410 of the communications device 1200 in FIG. 12.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 19-22, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. Pub. 20170324652 to Soo Bum Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches A node configured for wireless communications, (Lee para. [0082] and Fig. 4 teaches a node 408) comprising:
one or more memories comprising instructions (Lee Fig. 15 instructions 1534 ); and
one or more processors (Lee Fig. 15, processing circuitry 1504) configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
determine a discard timer associated with a plurality of data packets belonging to a protocol data unit (PDU) set has expired, wherein each of the plurality of data packets is associated with a dynamic priority; (Lee para. [0132] teaches discard timer based on a packet delay budget “PDB”). “PDB, as explained, defines a maximum delay between a PCEF (which is in a P-GW) and a device (e.g., UE) that needs to be respected to 98% of correctness, and after which delivering packets that may not meet the deadline is unnecessary (as the packets would be useless at the device) and therefore the uplink (UL) packets may be discarded at the P-GW.” Lee para. [0128] teaches a dynamic priority “To provide dynamic priority to packets of the same flow, for example over a given period of time, in some cases a given priority is used, while in other cases a different priority is used for the same flow.”)
and
discard the plurality of data packets based on the discard timer being expired. (Lee para. [0132] quoted above, teaches discarding packets that are beyond the maximum delay defined in the packet delay budget).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches The node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
update the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets for a new transmission.(Lee teaches in paras. [0150]-[0153] updating a priority when the device may send scheduling-related information to the RAN “when the device detects the start of a set of packets” which Examiner maps to a “new transmission”. )
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches The node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
determine the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets. (Lee teaches in Fig. 9 and para. [0122]-[0124] teaches determining a dynamic priority of each packet using tokens to enforce a traffic filtering policy. As shown below, each packet is treated according to a policy enforcement:
PNG
media_image1.png
848
1341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches The node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to: discard data packets of the plurality of data packets that have not been transmitted, in response to the determining that the discard timer has expired. (Lee teaches discarding packets when a discard timer expires in para. [0132] discarding packets that have not been transmitted when a discard timer expires).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches The node of claim 1, wherein the node is a user equipment (UE). (Lee teaches in Fig. 19 and paras. [0218]- that the “exemplary device” supporting prioritizations may be disposed in a circuit with input/output operations with a user interface, and in any network communication device).
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches The node of claim 1, wherein the node is a network entity. (Lee para. [0199] and Fig. 19 teaches that a RAN node may implement the priority processing and para. [0130] teaches that a discard timer may be implemented in a RAN. ).
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches A method for wireless communications by a node, comprising:
determining a discard timer associated with a plurality of data packets belonging to a protocol data unit (PDU) set has expired, wherein each of the plurality of data packets is associated with a dynamic priority; (Lee para. [0132] teaches discard timer based on a packet delay budget “PDB”). “PDB, as explained, defines a maximum delay between a PCEF (which is in a P-GW) and a device (e.g., UE) that needs to be respected to 98% of correctness, and after which delivering packets that may not meet the deadline is unnecessary (as the packets would be useless at the device) and therefore the uplink (UL) packets may be discarded at the P-GW.” Lee para. [0128] teaches a dynamic priority “To provide dynamic priority to packets of the same flow, for example over a given period of time, in some cases a given priority is used, while in other cases a different priority is used for the same flow.”)
and
discarding the plurality of data packets based on the discard timer being expired. (Lee para. [0132] quoted above, teaches discarding packets that are beyond the maximum delay defined in the packet delay budget).
Regarding claim 26, Lee teaches The method of claim 22, further comprising updating the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets for a new transmission. .(Lee teaches in paras. [0150]-[0153] updating a priority when the device may send scheduling-related information to the RAN “when the device detects the start of a set of packets” which Examiner maps to a “new transmission”. )
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a node, cause the node to perform a method comprising:
determining a discard timer associated with a plurality of data packets belonging to a protocol data unit (PDU) set has expired; (Lee para. [0132] teaches discard timer based on a packet delay budget “PDB”). “PDB, as explained, defines a maximum delay between a PCEF (which is in a P-GW) and a device (e.g., UE) that needs to be respected to 98% of correctness, and after which delivering packets that may not meet the deadline is unnecessary (as the packets would be useless at the device) and therefore the uplink (UL) packets may be discarded at the P-GW.” Lee para. [0128] teaches a dynamic priority “To provide dynamic priority to packets of the same flow, for example over a given period of time, in some cases a given priority is used, while in other cases a different priority is used for the same flow.”)
and
discarding the plurality of data based on the discard timer being expired. . (Lee para. [0132] quoted above, teaches discarding packets that are beyond the maximum delay defined in the packet delay budget).
Regarding claim 30, Lee teaches A node configured for wireless communications (Lee Fig. 19, para. [0219] teaches that an device for packet prioritization may be disposed in a RAN, eNodeB, or access node), comprising:
means for determining a discard timer associated with a plurality of data packets belonging to a protocol data unit (PDU) set has expired,; (Lee para. [0132] teaches a discard timer based on a packet delay budget “PDB”). “PDB, as explained, defines a maximum delay between a PCEF (which is in a P-GW) and a device (e.g., UE) that needs to be respected to 98% of correctness, and after which delivering packets that may not meet the deadline is unnecessary (as the packets would be useless at the device) and therefore the uplink (UL) packets may be discarded at the P-GW.” Lee para. [0128] teaches a dynamic priority “To provide dynamic priority to packets of the same flow, for example over a given period of time, in some cases a given priority is used, while in other cases a different priority is used for the same flow.”)
and
means for discarding the plurality of data based on the discard timer being expired. . (Lee para. [0132] quoted above, teaches discarding packets that are beyond the maximum delay defined in the packet delay budget. The discard timer may be in a gateway device in a node. Likewise, para. [0130] teaches that a discard timer may be implemented in a RAN. ).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 6-7, 15, 23, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US Pat. Pub. 20170245292 to Anil Agiwal et al. (hereinafter Agiwal).
Regarding claim 2, Lee does NOT teach The node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
update the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets using a medium access control (MAC) layer
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Agiwal teaches update the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets using a medium access control (MAC) layer (Agiwal, para. [0071] teaches that “A MAC entity will perform the following logical channel prioritization procedure when a new transmission is performed.” The logical channel prioritization procedure of Agiwal includes “emergency” prioritization described in Fig. 5 and para. [0131] which Examiner interprets as a “dynamic” priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Regarding claim 6, Lee does NOT teach The node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
configure a minimum priority value and a maximum priority value for a logical channel.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Agiwal teaches configure a minimum priority value and a maximum priority value for a logical channel. (Agiwal teaches a priority by assigning a minimum and maximum priority in a mapping table between priorities and LCG IDS (para. 0055) as shown in Table 1 para. [0050]). Note: LCG stands for Logical Channel Group:
PNG
media_image2.png
336
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Regarding claim 7, Lee does NOT teach The node of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
map a data packet of the plurality of data packets to the logical channel, wherein a value of the dynamic priority of the data packet is between the minimum priority value and the maximum priority value.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Agiwal teaches map a data packet of the plurality of data packets to the logical channel, wherein a value of the dynamic priority of the data packet is between the minimum priority value and the maximum priority value. (Agiwal para. [0013] provides “mapping the packet to a logical channel based on the priority and a destination to which the packet is to be transmitted”, Agiwal para. [0057] teaches that the priority includes “priority of UE, group priority, or highest priority per packet” and further teaches that “where the determined priority is lower or equal to the highest priority indicated in the UE’s context, the UE is permitted to transmit in the determined priority.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Regarding claim 15, Lee does NOT teach The node of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
map each of the plurality of data packets to a logical channel; determine the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets based on a priority of the logical channel; and
select a highest value of the priority for the logical channel from all priority values.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Agiwal teaches map each of the plurality of data packets to a logical channel; (Agiwal para. [0013] provides “mapping the packet to a logical channel based on the priority and a destination to which the packet is to be transmitted”)
determine the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets based on a priority of the logical channel; (Agiwal para. [0057] teaches that the priority includes “priority of UE, group priority, or highest priority per packet” and further teaches that “where the determined priority is lower or equal to the highest priority indicated in the UE’s context, the UE is permitted to transmit in the determined priority.
and
select a highest value of the priority for the logical channel from all priority values. (Agiwal para. [0055] teaches the UE maps the logical channels having the same priority to a corresponding LCG ID (i.e., an LCG ID related to the priority)” and para. [0057] teaches that the “UE is permitted to transmit in the determined priority”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Regarding claim 23, Lee does NOT teach The method of claim 22, further comprising updating the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets using a medium access control (MAC) layer.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications Agiwal teaches updating the dynamic priority associated with each of the plurality of data packets using a medium access control (MAC) layer (Agiwal, para. [0071] teaches that “A MAC entity will perform the following logical channel prioritization procedure when a new transmission is performed.” The logical channel prioritization procedure of Agiwal includes “emergency” prioritization described in Fig. 5 and para. [0131] which Examiner interprets as a “dynamic” priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Regarding claim 27, Lee does NOT teach The method of claim 22, further comprising configuring a minimum priority value and a maximum priority value for a logical channel.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications Agiwal teaches configuring a minimum priority value and a maximum priority value for a logical channel. (Agiwal teaches a priority by assigning a minimum and maximum as shown in Table 1, para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Regarding claim 28, Lee does NOT teach The method of claim 27, further comprising
mapping a data packet of the plurality of data packets to the logical channel, wherein a value of the dynamic priority of the data packet is between the minimum priority value and the maximum priority value.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Agiwal teaches mapping a data packet of the plurality of data packets to the logical channel, wherein a value of the dynamic priority of the data packet is between the minimum priority value and the maximum priority value. (Agiwal para. [0013] teaches “mapping the packet to a logical channel based on the priority and a destination to which the packet is to be transmitted”, Agiwal para. [0057] teaches that the priority includes “priority of UE, group priority, or highest priority per packet” and further teaches that “where the determined priority is lower or equal to the highest priority indicated in the UE’s context, the UE is permitted to transmit in the determined priority.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Claims 3, 4, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Agiwal, further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20210144580 to Faris Alfarhan et al. (hereinafter Alfarhan).
Regarding claim 3, Lee does NOT teaches The node of claim 1, wherein:
a data packet of the plurality of data packets is embedded into a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU) (Lee teaches an SDU discard timer in para. [0132] but does not specify an RLC SDU.)
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Agiwal teaches a data packet of the plurality of data packets is embedded into a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU) (Agiwal teaches in para. [0043] data packets in RLC.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Lee does NOT teach the RLC SDU is segmented into a plurality of RLC PDUs; and each RLC PDU is segmented into a plurality of RLC segments;
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP LTE Wireless Communications, Alfarhan teaches the RLC SDU is segmented into a plurality of RLC PDUs; (Alfarhan teaches segmented RLCs into RLC PDUs in para. [0164] and
each RLC PDU is segmented into a plurality of RLC segments (Alfarhan teaches segmentation into RLC segments providing rules in para. [0164])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Alfarhan with Lee to teach the RLC SDU segmented into a plurality of RLC PDUs and segment each RLC PDU into a plurality of RLC segments because Alfarhan is in the same field of prioritization in wireless systems as Agiwal. One would be motivated to combine Alfarhan with Lee to signal priority information in logical channel prioritization (LCP) as taught in Alfarhan para. [0003] and flow priority indicators (FPI) as taught in Alfarhan para. [0100].
Regarding claim 4, Lee does NOT teach The node of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to apply the dynamic priority of the data packet to all RLC SDUs, RLC PDUs and RLC segments of the data packet.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP LTE Wireless Communications, Alfarhan teaches cause the node to apply the dynamic priority of the data packet to all RLC SDUs, RLC PDUs and RLC segments of the data packet (Alfarhan teaches prioritization flow in para. [0163] including segmentation of RLCs and, Alfarhan para. [0126] teaches how prioritization can be dynamic and applied for an LCH).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Alfarhan with Lee to teach apply the dynamic priority of the data packet to all RLC SDUs, RLC PDUs and RLC segments. One would be motivated to combine Alfarhan with Lee to teach flow priority level (FPL) parameters and flow priority indicators (FPI) as part of QoS parameters to enhance flow control as taught in Alfarhan para. [0100].
Regarding claim 24, Lee does NOT teach The method of claim 22, wherein:
a data packet of the plurality of data packets is embedded into a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU) (Lee teaches an SDU discard timer in para. [0132] but does not specify an RLC SDU.)
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Agiwal teaches a data packet of the plurality of data packets is embedded into a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU) (Agiwal teaches in para. [0043] data packets in RLC.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dynamic priority of Lee with the dynamic priority of Agiwal. Each of Lee and Agiwal are in the art of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Agiwal with Lee in order to provide a processing a priority for transmission by a base station in a device-to-device (D2D) communication system as taught in Agiwal para. [0015].
Lee does NOT teach the RLC SDU is segmented into a plurality of RLC PDUs; and each RLC PDU is segmented into a plurality of RLC segments;
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP LTE Wireless Communications, Alfarhan teaches the RLC SDU is segmented into a plurality of RLC PDUs; (Alfarhan teaches segmented RLCs into RLC PDUs in para. [0164] and
each RLC PDU is segmented into a plurality of RLC segments (Alfarhan teaches segmentation into RLC segments providing rules in para. [0164])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Alfarhan with Lee to teach the RLC SDU segmented into a plurality of RLC PDUs and segment each RLC PDU into a plurality of RLC segments because Alfarhan is in the same field of prioritization in wireless systems as Lee. One would be motivated to combine Alfarhan with Lee, as suggested in Alfarhan para. [0003] to support logical channel prioritization (LCP).
Regarding claim 25, Lee, the primary reference, does NOT teach The method of claim 24, further comprising applying the dynamic priority of the data packet to all RLC SDUs, RLC PDUs and RLC segments of the data packet.
In the analogous art of 3GPP LTE Wireless Communications, Alfarhan teaches applying the dynamic priority of the data packet to all RLC SDUs, RLC PDUs and RLC segments of the data packet. (Alfarhan teaches prioritization flow in para. [0163] including segmentation of RLCs and para. [0126] describes how prioritization can be dynamic and applied for an LCH).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Alfarhan with Lee to teach applying priority to all RLC SDUs, RLC PDUs and RLC segments because Alfarhan is in the same field of prioritization in wireless systems as Lee. One would be motivated to combine Alfarhan with Lee, as suggested in Alfarhan para. [0003] to support logical channel prioritization (LCP).
Claims 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of International Pat App. WO2024035709 to Jaya Rao (hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claim 11, Lee does NOT teach The node of claim 8, wherein one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
provide by a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer an arrival time for the PDU set to a medium access control (MAC) layer.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP LTE wireless communications, Rao teaches provide by a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer the arrival time for the PDU set to a medium access control (MAC) layer. (Rao, para. [0201] teaches “In examples, a WTRU may send timing information on a latency (e.g., overall latency, remaining latency, etc.) for one or more PDUs and/or PDU sets transmitted in UL and received in DL based on measurement at AS layer entities and/or sublayers (e.g., SDAP, PDCP, RLC, MAC, etc.).). Examiner interprets “timing information on a latency” for a PDU set as “arrival time” of the PDU set.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Rao with Lee to teach SDAP layer arrival times for a PDU set because Rao is in the same field of flow control and prioritization (Rao para. [0104]) in wireless systems as Lee. One would be motivated to combine Rao with Lee to teach prioritization of PDU sets a taught in Rao para. [0104].
Regarding claim 12, Lee does NOT teaches The node of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
calculate a time from an arrival time of the PDU set;
and
determine the dynamic priority for each of the plurality of data packets based on the calculated time.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 4G Wireless Communications, Rao teaches calculate a time from an arrival time of the PDU set; (Rao para. [0274] calculates an arrival time for PDU sets to dynamically determined configured grant.)
and
determine the dynamic priority for each of the plurality of data packets based on the calculated time. (Rao para. [0328] teaches dynamic resource grant allocations based on traffic patterns in the UL. The traffic pattern information includes “expected arrival time of PDUS in one or more PDU sets”. Therefore, Rao teaches determining a dynamic priority (dynamic resource grant) based on the calculated time (expected time of PDUs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Rao with Lee to teach SDAP layer arrival times for a PDU set because Rao is in the same field of flow control and prioritization (Rao para. [0104]) in wireless systems. One would be motivated to combine Rao with Lee to prioritize PDU sets as taught in Rao para. [0104] and provide enhanced power saving for XR as taught in Rao para. [0026].
Regarding claim 13, Lee, the primary reference, does NOT teach The node of claim 12, wherein the dynamic priority is equal to a minimum priority value when the calculated time is more than a delay budget for the PDU set .
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 4G Wireless Communications, Rao teaches wherein the dynamic priority is equal to a minimum priority value when the calculated time is more than a delay budget for the PDU set (Rao, para. [0274] and claim 1 teaches that when an estimated arrival time (calculated time) is greater than a delay threshold, a configured grant availability is determined (dynamic priority)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Rao with Lee to teach a dynamic priority that is equal to a minimum priority value. One would be motivated to combine Rao with Lee to prioritize PDU sets as taught in Rao para. [0104] and provide enhanced power saving for XR as taught in Rao para. [0026].
Regarding claim 14, Lee the primary reference, does NOT teach The node of claim 12, wherein the dynamic priority is equal to a sum of a maximum priority value and another value when the calculated time is less than a delay budget for the PDU set.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 4G Wireless Communications, Rao teaches wherein the dynamic priority is equal to a sum of a maximum priority value and another value when the calculated time is less than a delay budget for the PDU set. (Rao teaches a dynamic priority set lower when the arrival time of the PDU set is less than a delay budget in para. [0017] wherein the “PDU set delay budget” determines the resource grant type (including a dynamic grant). Additionally, Rao para. [0318] teaches determining a latency for a PDU subset based on the PDU set delay budget and time for transmissions of a first PDU subset. Similarly, Rao para. [0325] teaches that the WTRU may request dynamic configured grants based on arrival time (calculated time) of a PDU set.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Rao with Lee to teach a dynamic priority is equal to a sum of a maximum priority value and another value when the calculated time is less than a delay budget for the PDU set. One would be motivated to combine Rao with Lee o prioritize PDU sets as taught in Rao para. [0104] and provide enhanced power saving for XR as taught in Rao para. [0026].
Regarding claim 16, Lee, the primary reference does NOT teach The node of claim 1, wherein each PDU is associated with a dynamic priority.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 4G Wireless Communications, Rao teaches wherein each PDU is associated with a dynamic priority (Rao teaches a dynamic grant associated with a PDU set in para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Rao with Lee to teach each PDU is associated with a dynamic priority. One would be motivated to combine Rao with Lee to prioritize PDU sets as taught in Rao para. [0104] and provide enhanced power saving for XR as taught in Rao para. [0026].
Regarding claim 17, Lee, the primary reference, does NOT teach The node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
determine the PDU set has met a content policy associated with the PDU set;
and
discard data packets of the plurality of data packets that have not been transmitted, in response to the determining that the PDU set has met the content policy.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 4G Wireless Communications, Rao teaches determine the PDU set has met a content policy associated with the PDU set (Rao para. [0202] teaches that PDU sets may have different QoS requirements. Examiner interprets QoS requirements as content policies.) and
discard data packets of the plurality of data packets that have not been transmitted, in response to the determining that the PDU set has met the content policy. (Rao para. [0202] teaches that PDUs may be discarded according to different discarding mechanisms including based on low priority when a discard timer expires and QoS requirements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Rao with Lee to teach content policies. One would be motivated to combine Rao with Lee to prioritize PDU sets as taught in Rao para. [0104] and provide enhanced power saving for XR as taught in Rao para. [0026].
Regarding claim 18, Lee, the primary reference, does NOT teach The node of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the node to:
receive at least one of:
a radio link control (RLC) status report or a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback indicating that the PDU set has met the content policy associated with the PDU set;
determine the PDU set has met the content policy based on the at least one of:
the RLC status report or the HARQ feedback.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 4G Wireless Communications, Rao teaches receive at least one of:
a radio link control (RLC) status report or a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback indicating that the PDU set has met the content policy associated with the PDU set (Rao para. [0143] teaches that a WTRU may receive information supporting adaptive scheduling for transmissions of a PDU set including “ARQ/HARQ feedback” and para. [0145] identifies the parameters including for PDU sets “a range of values associated with importance and/or priority information to identify one or more PDUs and/or PDU sets.” Para. [0148] teaches that such parameters may include MCS and/or HARQ configurations. Examiner interprets priority information to identify a PDU set as “content policy”.) and
determine the PDU set has met the content policy based on the at least one of:
the RLC status report or the HARQ feedback. (Rao para. [0182] teaches that a WTRU may implicitly receive QoS expectation information based on HARQ feedback. The number of time HARQ feedback is received is associated with the QoS (interpreted as content policy).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Rao with Lee to teach content policies and HARQ feedback. One would be motivated to combine Rao with Lee to prioritize PDU sets as taught in Rao para. [0104] and provide enhanced power saving for XR as taught in Rao para. [0026].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 8, further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20220353942 to Kyungmin Park et al. (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 10, Lee does NOT teach The node of claim 8, wherein the one or more and cause the node to:
provide by a non-access stratum (NAS) layer the delay budget and for the PDU set to a medium access control (MAC) layer.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP wireless communications, Park teaches provide by a non-access stratum (NAS) layer the delay budget for the PDU set to a medium access control (MAC) layer (Park teaches in para. [0293] that the NAS information includes a delay budget included with QoS information for downlink packets, which are transmitted as RRC configuration messages to “at least one of” a MAC CE (paras. [0296]-[0297]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Park with Lee, to teach NAS layer delay budget in that Park teaches in para. [0072] “The MAC 222 may be configured to perform scheduling, scheduling information reporting, and priority handling between UEs by means of dynamic scheduling. Scheduling may be performed in the gNB 220 (at the MAC 222) for downlink and uplink ….. and priority handling between logical channels of the UE 210 by means of logical channel prioritization, and/or padding.” One would be motivated to combine Lee and Park to provide a flexible and configurable architecture as taught in Park para. [0037].
Conclusion
Pertinent art: The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes International Pat. Pub. WO2024124020 to Michael Starsinic, Jaya Rao, Xavier De Foy and Achref Methenni claiming benefit to US Provisional App. No. 63/430,880 field December 7, 2020.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412