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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim states “The computer-readable storage medium 17”. It is believed that this is a typo omitting the word “claim” before the number “17”. It is recommended that this typo be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, line 4 of this claim contains the term “the relay device”. Since there is no prior mention of any relay device in the language of this claim, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for this term.
Regarding claim 27, line 3 of this claim contains the term “the relay device”. Since there is no prior mention of any relay device in the language of this claim, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for this term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because of the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claims 17 and 31, these claims are directed towards a “computer-readable storage medium”. It has been held that the ordinary definition of such a medium includes transitory media. Transitory media does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these claims are rejected as being directed towards non-statutory embodiments. It is recommended that the claims be amended such that the are directed towards only a “non transitory” computer-readable storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by R2-1800157 by Oppo titled “Discussion on redundant connectivity support in IAB” (hereafter referred to as Oppo).
With respect to claim 1, Oppo discloses a method for data transmission, comprising: receiving a data packet (See section 2.2 and Figure 1 of Oppo for reference to a data transmission relay method wherein a node, i.e. Relay Node 2, receives a data packet from another relay node). Oppo also discloses obtaining a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) by unpacking the data packet (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication for transmission and duplication detection for reception, such that received packets are unpacked to obtain PDCP PDUs). Oppo further discloses performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to performing duplication detection on received PDCP PDUs). Oppo also discloses transmitting a non-duplicate data packet upon detecting that the data packet is the non-duplicate data packet (See section 2.2 of Oppo for reference to an embodiment wherein duplication is stopped at Relay Node 2, such that non-duplicated packets are transmitted from Relay Node 2, while duplicated packets are not).
With respect to claim 2, Oppo discloses wherein receiving the data packet comprises: receiving the data packet transmitted by first user equipment (UE) via a PC5 interface (See section 2.2 and proposal 3 of Oppo for reference to Relay Nodes being connected via PC5 such that the relay nodes transmitting the data act as UEs).
With respect to claim 7, Oppo discloses wherein transmitting the non-duplicate data packet comprises: transmitting the non-duplicate data packet to a second UE via a PC5 interface (See section 2.2 and proposal 3 of Oppo for reference to Relay Nodes being connected via PC5 such that the relay nodes transmitting the data act as UEs, wherein Relay Node 2 receives a data packet from Relay Node 1 or Relay Node 3 and transmits non-duplicate packets to Relay Node 4).
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.
Claims 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppo in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication US 2015/0188680 A1).
With respect to claim 3, although Oppo does disclose performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication detection for reception), Oppo does not explicitly disclose how the duplicate packet detection is performed. Thus, Oppo does not disclose performing the duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU according to a sequence number (SN) assigned by a PDCP layer in a protocol stack of the first UE. However, Li et al., in the field of communications, discloses a similar process of duplicate detection being performed in a PDCP layer using sequence numbers assigned to packets (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, when presented with the work of Li et al., to combine performing duplicate detection of packets in a PDCP layer using sequence numbers assigned to packets, as suggested by Li et al., within the system and method of Oppo with the motivation being to allow such duplicate packets to be easily detected and discarded, as necessary.
With respect to claim 4, although Oppo does disclose performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication detection for reception), Oppo does not explicitly disclose wherein a protocol stack of a relay device comprises a first protocol layer, and performing the duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU comprises: performing, at the first protocol layer, the duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 3, Li et al. renders obvious performing duplicate detection in a PDCP layer (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Li et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 3.
With respect to claim 5, Oppo does not specifically disclose wherein before transmitting the non-duplicate data packet, the method further comprises: delivering the non-duplicate data packet to a transmit buffer. However, Li et al., in the field of communications, discloses a similar process of duplicate detection being performed in a PDCP layer (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.), wherein packets are stored in a buffer of a UE before being transmitted (See paragraph 44 and paragraph 65 of Li et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, when presented with the work of Li et al., to combine storing packets in a buffer of a UE before they are transmitted, as suggested by Li et al., within the system and method of Oppo with the motivation being to allow multiple packets to be buffered while waiting for resources to be available for their transmission.
With respect to claim 6, Oppo does not specifically disclose wherein transmitting the non-duplicate data packet comprises: obtaining a data packet to-be-transmitted by processing the data packet in the transmit buffer at the protocol stack of the relay device; and transmitting the data packet to-be-transmitted. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 3, Li et al. renders obvious performing duplicate detection of PDCP PDUs in a PDCP layer (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.). As shown above in the rejection of claim 5, Li et al. also renders obvious store packets in a transmit buffer of a UE before transmitting the packets (See paragraph 44 and paragraph 65 of Li et al.). Thus, the limitations of this claim are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 3 and claim 5.
With respect to claim 8, although Oppo does disclose performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication detection for reception), Oppo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first protocol layer is above a second protocol layer in the protocol stack, and the second protocol layer is a radio link control (RLC) layer. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 3, Li et al. renders obvious performing duplicate detection in a PDCP layer that is above a RLC layer (See paragraph 24, paragraphs 28-29, and Figure 3 of Li et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Li et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 3.
With respect to claim 9, although Oppo does disclose performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication detection for reception), Oppo does not explicitly disclose discarding a duplicate data packet upon detecting that the data packet is the duplicate data packet. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 3, Li et al. renders obvious performing duplicate detection in a PDCP layer wherein duplicate packets are discarded (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Li et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 3.
Claims 15, 17, 23, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppo in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0019346 A1; hereafter referred to as Li ‘346).
With respect to claim 15, Oppo discloses a device for data transmission receiving a data packet (See section 2.2 and Figure 1 of Oppo for reference to a data transmission relay method wherein a node, i.e. Relay Node 2, which is a device, receives a data packet from another relay node). Oppo also discloses obtaining a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) by unpacking the data packet (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication for transmission and duplication detection for reception, such that received packets are unpacked to obtain PDCP PDUs). Oppo further discloses performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to performing duplication detection on received PDCP PDUs). Oppo also discloses transmitting a non-duplicate data packet upon detecting that the data packet is the non-duplicate data packet (See section 2.2 of Oppo for reference to an embodiment wherein duplication is stopped at Relay Node 2, such that non-duplicated packets are transmitted from Relay Node 2, while duplicated packets are not). Although Oppo does disclose a Relay Node device that may be a UE, Oppo does not specifically disclose the structure of the device comprising a processor; a transceiver; and a memory configured to store one or more programs, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and execute the one or more programs. However, using such a structure to implement a communication device is old and well known in the field of communications. For example, Li ‘346 discloses apparatuses performing relay communication and comprising a processor, an interface circuit that may be a transceiver, and a memory storing program instructions executed by the processor (See paragraph 159 and Figure 14 of Li ‘346). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Li ‘346, to combine using the old and well-known structure of a processor, an interface circuit that may be a transceiver, and a memory storing program instructions executed by the processor to implement the communication devices of Oppo.
With respect to claim 17, Oppo discloses a device for data transmission receiving a data packet (See section 2.2 and Figure 1 of Oppo for reference to a data transmission relay method wherein a node, i.e. Relay Node 2, which is a device, receives a data packet from another relay node). Oppo also discloses obtaining a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) by unpacking the data packet (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication for transmission and duplication detection for reception, such that received packets are unpacked to obtain PDCP PDUs). Oppo further discloses performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to performing duplication detection on received PDCP PDUs). Oppo also discloses transmitting a non-duplicate data packet upon detecting that the data packet is the non-duplicate data packet (See section 2.2 of Oppo for reference to an embodiment wherein duplication is stopped at Relay Node 2, such that non-duplicated packets are transmitted from Relay Node 2, while duplicated packets are not). Although Oppo does disclose a Relay Node device that may be a UE, Oppo does not specifically disclose the structure of the device comprising a computer-readable storage medium storing computer programs which are operable with a computer. However, using such a structure to implement a communication device is old and well known in the field of communications. For example, Li ‘346 discloses apparatuses performing relay communication and comprising a processor that acts as a computer and a memory storing program instructions executed by the processor (See paragraph 159 and Figure 14 of Li ‘346). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Li ‘346, to combine using the old and well-known structure of a processor and a memory storing program instructions executed by the processor to implement the communication devices of Oppo.
With respect to claims 23 and 31, Oppo discloses receiving the data packet transmitted by first user equipment (UE) via a PC5 interface (See section 2.2 and proposal 3 of Oppo for reference to Relay Nodes being connected via PC5 such that the relay nodes transmitting the data act as UEs).
With respect to claim 28, Oppo discloses transmitting the non-duplicate data packet to a second UE via a PC5 interface (See section 2.2 and proposal 3 of Oppo for reference to Relay Nodes being connected via PC5 such that the relay nodes transmitting the data act as UEs, wherein Relay Node 2 receives a data packet from Relay Node 1 or Relay Node 3 and transmits non-duplicate packets to Relay Node 4).
Claims 24-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppo in view of Li ‘346, and in further view of Li et al.
With respect to claim 24, although Oppo does disclose performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication detection for reception), Oppo does not explicitly disclose how the duplicate packet detection is performed. Thus, Oppo does not disclose performing the duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU according to a sequence number (SN) assigned by a PDCP layer in a protocol stack of the first UE. However, Li et al., in the field of communications, discloses a similar process of duplicate detection being performed in a PDCP layer using sequence numbers assigned to packets (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, when presented with the work of Li et al., to combine performing duplicate detection of packets in a PDCP layer using sequence numbers assigned to packets, as suggested by Li et al., within the system and method of Oppo with the motivation being to allow such duplicate packets to be easily detected and discarded, as necessary.
With respect to claim 25, although Oppo does disclose performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication detection for reception), Oppo does not explicitly disclose wherein a protocol stack of a relay device comprises a first protocol layer, and performing the duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU comprises: performing, at the first protocol layer, the duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 24, Li et al. renders obvious performing duplicate detection in a PDCP layer (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Li et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 24.
With respect to claim 26, Oppo does not specifically disclose delivering the non-duplicate data packet to a transmit buffer, before transmitting the non-duplicate data packet. However, Li et al., in the field of communications, discloses a similar process of duplicate detection being performed in a PDCP layer (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.), wherein packets are stored in a buffer of a UE before being transmitted (See paragraph 44 and paragraph 65 of Li et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, when presented with the work of Li et al., to combine storing packets in a buffer of a UE before they are transmitted, as suggested by Li et al., within the system and method of Oppo with the motivation being to allow multiple packets to be buffered while waiting for resources to be available for their transmission.
With respect to claim 27, Oppo does not specifically disclose obtaining a data packet to-be-transmitted by processing the data packet in the transmit buffer at the protocol stack of the relay device and transmitting the data packet to-be-transmitted. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 24, Li et al. renders obvious performing duplicate detection of PDCP PDUs in a PDCP layer (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.). As shown above in the rejection of claim 26, Li et al. also renders obvious store packets in a transmit buffer of a UE before transmitting the packets (See paragraph 44 and paragraph 65 of Li et al.). Thus, the limitations of this claim are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 24 and claim 26.
With respect to claim 29, although Oppo does disclose performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication detection for reception), Oppo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first protocol layer is above a second protocol layer in the protocol stack, and the second protocol layer is a radio link control (RLC) layer. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 24, Li et al. renders obvious performing duplicate detection in a PDCP layer that is above a RLC layer (See paragraph 24, paragraphs 28-29, and Figure 3 of Li et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Li et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 24.
With respect to claim 30, although Oppo does disclose performing duplicate packet detection on the PDCP PDU (See section 2.2 and proposal 2 of Oppo for reference to the routing functionality between relay nodes supporting PDCP PDU duplication detection for reception), Oppo does not explicitly disclose discarding a duplicate data packet upon detecting that the data packet is the duplicate data packet. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 24, Li et al. renders obvious performing duplicate detection in a PDCP layer wherein duplicate packets are discarded (See paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 3 of Li et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Li et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461