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 03/23/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/23/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are partially persuasive at least for reasons as set below. Thus, the objections to Title have been withdrawn.
On pages 10-11 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
The abstract of the disclosure and the title of the invention are objected to.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the phrase, "Embodiments."
The Office Action alleges that this language is objectionable because it allegedly can be implied.
The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The abstract describes subject matter related to particular
"Embodiments of systems and methods for managing packet transmissions between the base
station and a user equipment (UE)." Removing "Embodiments of' from the abstract would imply
that the subject matter described in the abstract is related to "systems and methods for managing packet transmissions between the base station and a user equipment (UE)" rather than "Embodiments" thereof. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the objection to the abstract of the disclosure be withdrawn.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under MPEP 608.01(b), the abstract must be a concise statement of the technical disclosure as written, rather than on implication or external interpretation. The current abstract is considered non-limiting and not definitive, as it fails to clearly define the technical boundaries of the invention. Applicant’s argument that removal of the phrase “embodiment of” would alter the meaning of the abstract is not persuasive, as the abstract should concisely describe the technical disclosure itself rather than characterize it as “embodiments”.
With regard to the objections to Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/23/2026 in view of amendments have been fully considered but are partially persuasive. Thus, the objections to Claims other than what are set forth below in the current Office Action have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/23/2026 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 Objections
Claims 21-23, 27 and 30 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 21 recites, “an RLC radio link control (RLC) timer” (line 3). It is suggested to replace it with “a radio link control (RLC) timer” for more clarity.
Claim 22 recites, “for receiving Web Real-time Communication (WebRTC) packets” (lines 2-3). It is suggested to replace it with “for receiving the WebRTC packets” for more clarity.
Claim 23 recites, “… providing received WebRTC packets …” (lines 1-2). It is suggested to replace it with “… providing the received WebRTC packets …” for more clarity
Claim 27 recites, “a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) timer” (line 3). It is suggested to replace it with “a PDCP timer” for more clarity.
Claim 28 recites, “using a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) out-of-order delivery (OOOD) mode” (lines 4-5). It is suggested to replace it with “using the PDCP OOOD mode” for more clarity.
Claim 30 recites, “… provide received WebRTC packets …” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “… provide the received WebRTC packets …” for more clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-19, 22, 24-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US Publication No. 2018/0324642 A1) in view of Kang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0386396 A1) and further in view of Waxman et al (US Publication No. 2015/0089046 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Yu discloses, a method performed by a processor of a user equipment (UE) for managing packet transmissions received from a base station [FIG. 6B; its related descriptions; ¶0181-0182, a method performed by UE 610 for communicating packets received from base station 600], comprising:
analyzing one or more conditions of a wireless link between the UE and the base station for receiving . . . packets from the base station [FIG. 6B; its related descriptions; ¶0193, (step 660) measuring an activation parameter (further see ¶0060, “the activation parameter may be a packet loss rate or a channel quality indicator associated with a communication link between the base station and the UE”) (i.e., one or more conditions); further see ¶0198, for receiving (duplicated) packets from the base station];
selecting a mode for receiving the packets from the base station [FIG. 6B; its related descriptions; ¶0194, (steps 665 and 670), the UE transmits an activation message 670 activating a duplication mode for receiving the packets from the base station] based on whether the one or more conditions of the wireless link between the base station and the UE meets a respective condition threshold [FIG. 6B; its related descriptions; ¶0193-0194, based on determining the activation parameter satisfies a threshold (step 665)].
Although You discloses, receiving the packets using the mode in response to the one or more conditions of the wireless link between the UE and the base station meeting the respective condition threshold [FIG. 6B; its related descriptions; ¶0198 and 0193-0194, (step 685), the UE 610-a receives duplicated packets using the duplication mode based on determining the activation parameter satisfies a threshold (step 665)], You does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), receiving the WebRTC packets using a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) out-of-order delivery (OOOD) mode in response to the one or more conditions of the wireless link between the UE and the base station meeting the respective condition threshold.
However, Kang discloses, receiving packets using a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) out-of-order delivery (OOOD) mode [¶0158-0159, when the out-of-order delivery field is configured to be 1, a reception terminal may determine that a packet received together with an out-of-order delivery indicator and packets received afterwards are transmittable out-of-order] in response to the one or more condition of the wireless link [¶0135, the PDCP out-of-order delivery may be configured for at least one of a PQI, an SLRB, a PC5 flow, or a resource type; further see ¶0149-0152, latency of PQI is shorter than a reference time].
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 Yu with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kang 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 Kang into the system of Yu would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to reduce latency and improve reliability by allowing usable packets to be processed without waiting for strict in-order delivery, 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)).
Although Yu in view of Kang discloses, “analyzing one or more conditions of a wireless link between the UE and the base station for receiving . . . packets from the base station; and selecting a mode for receiving the packets from the base station based on whether the one or more conditions of the wireless link between the base station and the UE meets a respective condition threshold” as set forth above, Yu in view of Kang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the packets received from the base station are Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) packets.
However, Waxman discloses, receiving Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) packets [¶0007 and FIG. 4B and its related descriptions, the WebRTC clients may then establish a direct peer connection with one another, and may begin an exchange of media and/or data packets transporting real-time communications; note one of the WebRTC clients receives WebRCT data packets from another of the WebRTC clients].
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 Yu in view of Kang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Waxman 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 Waxman into the system of Yu in view of Kang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure consistent real-time service despite varying radio conditions, 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 18, Yu in view of Kang and Waxman discloses, the method of claim 17 and particularly “analyzing the one or more conditions of the wireless link between the UE and the base station for receiving Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) packets from the base station” as set forth above.
Yu discloses, determining whether a signal condition of the wireless link between UE and the base station meets a signal condition threshold [FIG. 6B; its related descriptions; ¶0193-0194, determining whether the activation parameter (further see ¶0060, “the activation parameter may be a packet loss rate or a channel quality indicator associated with a communication link between the base station and the UE”) satisfies the threshold].
Regarding claim 19, Yu in view of Waxman discloses, the method of claim 17 as set forth above.
Although Yu discloses, determining whether the one or more conditions of the wireless link between the UE and the base station meets a threshold” as set forth above, Yu in view of Kang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the one or more conditions are a data carriage capacity.
However, Waxman discloses, a data carriage capacity as the one or more conditions [¶0032, the WebRTC interactive flow QoS characteristic may include a throughput level; note that the throughput is described in an example of the data carriage capacity1].
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 Waxman in the system of Yu in view of Kang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 17.
Regarding claim 22, Yu in view of Kang and Waxman discloses, the method of claim 17 and particularly “analyzing the one or more conditions of the wireless link between the UE and the base station for receiving Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) packets from the base station” as set forth above.
Yu in view of Kang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), receiving the WebRTC packets from the base station via an RTC peer connection.
However, Waxman discloses, . . . receiving WebRTC packets from the base station via an RTC peer connection [¶0027, receiving WebRTC data packets via an RTC peer connection between the first WebRCT client and the second WebRCT client].
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 Waxman in the system of Yu in view of Kang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 17.
Regarding claim 24, Yu discloses, a user equipment (UE) [FIG. 6B; its related descriptions; ¶0181-0182, user equipment (UE) 610], comprising:
a processor configured with processor-executable instructions [FIG. 14; its related descriptions; ¶0290-0292, processor 1420 configured with computer-readable instructions; note that every user equipment has at least one processor].
Since claim 24 recites similar features to claim 17 without further additional features, claim 24 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 17.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 19.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 22.
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US Publication No. 2018/0324642 A1) in view of Kang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0386396 A1) and further in view of Waxman et al (US Publication No. 2015/0089046 A1) and further in view of Choi et al (US Publication No. 2019/0289054 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Yu in view of Kang and Waxman discloses, the method of claim 17 and particularly, “WebRCT packets” as set forth above.
Although Yu discloses, an application executing in the UE according to the selected mode [FIG. 6B; its related descriptions; ¶00194-0198, the UE executes activating the duplication of packets based on determining the duplication mode; note that executing the activating the duplication of packets is made by at least one application of the UE], Yu in view of Kang and Waxman does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Choi discloses, providing received WebRTC packets to an application executing in the UE [¶0049, the proxy module receive data from the examiner device 150 and provide it to the streaming application 110 executing in the electronic device 100].
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 Yu in view of Kang and Waxman with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Choi 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 Choi into the system of Yu in view of Kang and Waxman would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure smooth and stable audio/video performance over wireless links, 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 30, claim 30 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 and 27-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections 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 (IFP) 8:30am-6:00pm (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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (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 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 See ¶0032 of the specification.
Prosecution Insights