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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 02/27/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the at least one modified timing value corresponds to a first value in accordance with a first radio link control (RLC) mode, comprising an unacknowledged mode (UM), of the application, or corresponds to a second value in accordance with a second RLC mode of the application, comprising an acknowledge mode (AM), wherein the first value is different from the second value;” (lines 9-13). As underlined above, “at least one modified timing value” corresponds to a “first value” or a “second value”. Since the first value or the second value is an optional limitation, it is unclear whether the first value or the second value is even used for comparison of their values with each other. Claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rational applied to claim 1. For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
Claims 2-16 and 18-30 are also rejected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claims, as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kana et al (US Publication No. 2021/0258409) in view of Kubota et al (US Publication No. 2016/0219458).
Regarding claim 1, Kana discloses, a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0094, wireless device 120 for wireless communication], comprising:
at least one memory [FIGS. 2 and 4; their related descriptions; ¶0084, memory 220 or 259; note that every wireless device has at least one memory]; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory, the at least one processor operable to cause the UE to [FIGS. 2 and 4; its related descriptions; ¶0083-0084, processor; note that every wireless device has at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor causes the wireless device to perform action(s)]:
generate at least one modified timing value, corresponding to at least one modem timer [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0028 and 0097, in block 506, the processor may determine a timer adjustment based on the detected one or more conditions; note that the timer adjustment includes adjustments for amount of time that the processor requires to perform reordering and/or reassembly of packets (i.e., corresponds to a modem timer) received from the communication network (see ¶0104)], by modifying at least one configured timing value, corresponding to the at least one modem timer [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0028 and 0097, determining a timer adjustment that lengthens or shortens a network-determined timer], in accordance with a jitter timing value of an application that is instantiated on the UE [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0035-0037, 0044 and 0086, based on characteristics of a delay tolerance of an application that uses the packets]; and
receive at least one data packet in accordance with the at least one modified timing value [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0100 and 0035-0037, the processor may receive additional packets and reorder the packets and the additional packets before the adjusted timer expires].
Kana does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the at least one modified timing value corresponds to a first value in accordance with a first radio link control (RLC) mode, comprising an un-acknowledge mode (UM), of the application, or corresponds to a second value in accordance with a second RLC mode of the application, comprising an acknowledge mode (AM), wherein the first value is different from the second value.
However, Kubota discloses, the at least one modified timing value corresponds to a first value in accordance with a first radio link control (RLC) mode, comprising an un-acknowledge mode (UM), of the application [¶0100, if the B bit is set to the UM value, the peer RLC entity 1304 starts using a t-Reordering timer configured for the UM operation (i.e., RLC UM mode), i.e., the time is configured with a shorter timer duration than the AM timer; note that the t-Reordering timer with a shorter timer duration is considered as the claimed “at least one modified timing value corresponding to a first value], or corresponds to a second value in accordance with a second RLC mode of the application, comprising an acknowledge mode (AM) [¶0101, when the RLC entity determines a switch from UM to AM, . . . starts using a t-Reordering timer configured for the AM operation (which is configured with a longer timer duration than the UM; note that the t-Reordering timer with a longer timer duration is considered as the claimed “at least one modified timing value corresponding to a second value], wherein the first value is different from the second value [¶0100-0101, the t-Reordering timer configured in the UM operation is shorter than that configured in the AM operation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Kubota in the system of Kana in order to cause the system to be able to secure more time for AM mode which is delay-sensitive and reduce the need for buffering large amounts of data, thus improving throughput reliability of the system [e.g., ¶0008 of Kubota ].
Regarding claim 2, Kana in view of Kubota discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Kana discloses, wherein the at least one modem timer comprises a reordering timer and a reassembly timer [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0104, the processor may detect a plurality of conditions, each of which may increase or decrease an amount of time that the processor requires to perform packet reordering and/or reassembly of at least some of the packets received from the communication network], and wherein the at least one processor is further operable to cause the UE to receive a timer configuration that indicates the at least one configured timing value [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0097, a network-determined time; further see ¶0035, the duration or value of the reordering timer is typically set by a network device (such as by a base station)].
Regarding claim 15, Kana in view of Kubota discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Kana discloses, wherein the application is associated with an internet protocol multimedia subsystem [¶0029, multimedia Internet-enabled cellular telephones].
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kana et al (US Publication No. 2021/0258409) in view of Kubota et al (US Publication No. 2016/0219458) and further in view of Pandey et al “Efficient reordering-reassembly PDCP and RLC window management algorithm in 5G and beyond,” 2020 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT), Bangalore, India, 2020, pp. 1-6 and further in view of Du et al (US Publication No. 2023/0073796).
Regarding claim 3, Kana in view of Kubota discloses, the UE of claim 2 as set forth above.
Although Kana discloses, wherein the at least one modified timing value comprises a modified reordering timing value corresponding to the reordering timer and a modified reassembly timing value corresponding to the reassembly timer [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0104, the processor may detect a plurality of conditions, each of which may increase or decrease an amount of time that the processor requires to perform packet reordering and/or reassembly of at least some of the packets received from the communication network], Kana in view of Kubota does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Pandey discloses, wherein the at least one modified timing value is further in accordance with a relationship between the modified reordering timing value and the modified reassembly timing value [section IV; FIGS. 2a-2c, after T-reorder timer expires, PDCP informs RLC of its new lower bound, signaling that certain packets are no longer needed, and RCL can use this information to avoid wasting time/resources retransmitting those packets, which affects RLC’s decision-making on the T-assembly timer or value].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Pandey in the system of Kana in view of Kubota in order to cause the system to be able to ensure a synchronization between PDCP and RLC layers to reduce duplicate transmissions and improve latency and throughput [e.g., section IV of Pandey].
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kana et al (US Publication No. 2021/0258409) in view of Kubota et al (US Publication No. 2016/0219458) and further in view of Pandey et al “Efficient reordering-reassembly PDCP and RLC window management algorithm in 5G and beyond,” 2020 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT), Bangalore, India, 2020, pp. 1-6 and further in view of Du et al (US Publication No. 2023/0073796).
Regarding claim 4, Kana in view of Kubota and Pandey discloses, the UE of claim 3 as set forth above.
Kana in view of Kubota and Pandey does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Du discloses, wherein the modified reordering timing value is equal to a first product of the jitter timing value and a value of a first variable [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0045 and 0055, the reorder timer value is increased or reduced or remained in accordance with a latency-sensitive type of an application; note that a change of the reorder timer value requires a product of a variable to control the change].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Kana in view of Kubota and Pandey with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Du to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Du into the system of Kana in view of Kubota and Pandey would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring to improve latency or reduce a packet discard rate for a specific application, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kana et al (US
Publication No. 2021/0258409) in view of Kubota et al (US Publication No. 2016/0219458) and further in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2018/0338264).
Regarding claim 16, Kana in view of Kubota discloses, the UE of claim 15 as set forth above.
Kana in view of Kubota does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kim discloses, wherein the application comprises at least one of an extended reality application, a virtual reality application, or an augmented reality application [¶0100, an application which does not require a fast speed but is sensitive to the delay (for example, VR, AR, or a
game application)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's
endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the system of Kana in view of Kubota with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kim to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Kim into the system of Kana in view of Kubota would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling real-time rendering, interactive gaming with ultra-low latency and high-bandwidth experiences, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-14 and 21-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejections and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469