DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
3. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claims 1, 3-14, 16-27, 29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3-13, 31 and 32, the specification and the original claims do not provide proper support for the added limitation “starting a reordering timer while the timer is running…”
Similar arguments apply to claims 14, 16-26, 33, 34, 27 and 29.
Fig. 6, ¶ [0106] and ¶ [0175] of the specification provide support for starting the timer and a reordering timer at the same time (i.e., based at least in part on detecting that the third packet is out of order).
However, there is no support for starting a reordering timer while the timer is running.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 14, 16-20, 22, 25, 27, 29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Wittberg et al. (US 2020/0351983 A1, hereinafter “Wittberg”).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 27 and 29, Wittberg teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a receiver device (figs. 6, 8, ¶ [0110], ¶ [0111], ¶ [0127]), comprising: receiving a first packet of a plurality of packets at a first time, wherein the first packet has a first sequence number (figs. 1, 2, 9, 10, ¶ [0015]-¶ [0018]); receiving a second packet of the plurality of packets at a second time, wherein a third packet of the plurality of packets, to be received between the first packet and the second packet based at least in part on a third sequence number of the third packet, has not arrived at the second time (e.g., step 102 of fig. 1. Figs. 2, 7, 9, 10, ¶ [0015]-¶ [0018]), starting a timer based at least in part on the third packet having not arrived at the second time e.g., step 102 of fig. 1 where t-Reordering is started. Figs. 2, 7, 9, 10, ¶ [0016],The t-Reordering timer is started.); receiving the third packet at a third time after the second time (step 204 of fig. 2, ¶ [0015]-¶ [0018]); starting a reordering timer based at least in part on the third packet having not arrived at the second time, wherein the reordering timer defines a reordering window (¶ [0015]-¶ [0018], [0146], In some other embodiments, the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is started at the same time as the t-Reordering timer. ¶ [0071], it is the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer that is responsible for moving the lower edge of the receiving window once the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer expires); providing the first packet, the second packet, and the third packet in an order based at least in part on whether the third packet is received within the timer, wherein the third packet is provided between the first packet and the second packet if the third packet is received within the timer (¶ [0017] If more PDCP PDUs, e.g. some of the one or more missing PDCP PDUs, are received out-of-sequence before t-Reordering expire, they are buffered and not immediately forwarded to an upper layer. ¶ [0018] If the one or more missing PDCP PDUs are all received before the t-Reordering timer expire, they are immediately forwarded in-sequence to the upper layer, followed by an in-sequence delivery of buffered PDUs to the upper layer), and wherein the third packet is provided after the second packet if the third packet is not received within the timer (fig. 2, ¶ [0069], In action 203, the t-reordering timer expires, the buffered PDU N is forwarded to one or more upper layers and the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is started. In action 204, the PDU N-2 arrives and is forwarded, e.g. immediately forwarded, to one or more upper layers. Since the PDU N-2 is arrived out of the receiving window it is forwarded to the upper layer out of order, i.e. it will be forwarded out of sequence number order. ¶ [0071]); and providing, to the higher layer, a remainder of packets, of the plurality of packets other than the first packet, the second packet, and the third packet, after expiration of the timer, prior to expiration of a reordering timer, and prior to an end of the reordering window (figs. 1-4, 7A, 7B, ¶ [0017], If more PDCP PDUs, e.g. some of the one or more missing PDCP PDUs, are received out-of-sequence before t-Reordering expire, they are buffered and not immediately forwarded to an upper layer. ¶ [0018] If the one or more missing PDCP PDUs are all received before the t-Reordering timer expire, they are immediately forwarded in-sequence to the upper layer, followed by an in-sequence delivery of buffered PDUs to the upper layer. ¶ [0071], it is the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer that is responsible for moving the lower edge of the receiving window once the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer expires. During the time when the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is running, any late PDUs that are received by the PDCP receiver, will immediately be forwarded to higher layers. Thus, they will be forwarded in any order to the higher layers, i.e. they may be forwarded out of sequence number order to the higher layers. ¶ [0072], ¶ [0073], ¶ [0074], a t-Reordering timer (i.e., the timer) set to 20 ms and a t-WaitForLatePDUs timer (i.e., the reordering timer different from the timer) set to 120 ms to wait for late PDUs are used. In other words, the remainder of packets are provided to the higher layer after the expiration of the t-Rordering timer (i.e., the timer), prior to expiration of a reordering timer (i.e., t-WaitForLatePDU timer) and prior to an end of the reordering window. ¶ [0075], ¶ [0104], the network node associates a window with the second time period, ¶ [0106], The network node may forward, to the upper layer and in any order, the one or more second data units received from the lower layer during the second time period.).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of packets omits a fourth packet, and wherein providing the remainder of packets further comprises providing the remainder of packets after an end of a reordering timer based at least in part on having not received the fourth packet within the reordering timer (figs. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, ¶ [0018] If the one or more missing PDCP PDUs are all received before the t-Reordering timer expire, they are immediately forwarded in-sequence to the upper layer, followed by an in-sequence delivery of buffered PDUs to the upper layer. ¶ [0069], In action 203, the t-reordering timer expires, the buffered PDU N is forwarded to one or more upper layers and the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is started. In action 204, the PDU N-2 arrives and is forwarded, e.g. immediately forwarded, to one or more upper layers. Where it is implicit that the process of starting the t-Reordering and/or t-WaitForLatePDU and forwarding the received/buffered PDUs is repeated for the next missing/late (fourth) PDU.).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the omission of the fourth packet triggers a second instance of the timer (figs. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, ¶ [0018] If the one or more missing PDCP PDUs are all received before the t-Reordering timer expire, they are immediately forwarded in-sequence to the upper layer, followed by an in-sequence delivery of buffered PDUs to the upper layer. ¶ [0069], In action 203, the t-reordering timer expires, the buffered PDU N is forwarded to one or more upper layers and the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is started. In action 204, the PDU N-2 arrives and is forwarded, e.g. immediately forwarded, to one or more upper layers. Where it is implicit that the process of starting the t-Reordering and/or t-WaitForLatePDU and forwarding the received/buffered PDUs is repeated for the next missing/late (fourth) PDU.).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of packets includes a fourth packet with a fourth sequence number that is higher than a fifth sequence number of a fifth packet received after the fourth packet, and wherein providing the remainder of packets further comprises providing the remainder of packets including the fourth packet after the fifth packet (figs. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, ¶ [0017] If more PDCP PDUs, e.g. some of the one or more missing PDCP PDUs, are received out-of-sequence before t-Reordering expire, they are buffered and not immediately forwarded to an upper layer. ¶ [0018] If the one or more missing PDCP PDUs are all received before the t-Reordering timer expire, they are immediately forwarded in-sequence to the upper layer, followed by an in-sequence delivery of buffered PDUs to the upper layer. ¶ [0069]. ¶ [0117]. Where it is implicit that the process of forwarding the received/buffered PDUs based on t-Reordering and/or t-WaitForLatePDU is repeated for the next missing/late (fourth) PDUs.).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of packets includes a fourth packet with a fourth sequence number that is higher than a fifth sequence number of a fifth packet received after the fourth packet, and wherein providing the remainder of packets further comprises providing the remainder of packets including the fourth packet in a position in which the fourth packet was received (figs. 1, 2, 9, 10, ¶ [0017], ¶ [0018], ¶ [0069], In action 203, the t-reordering timer expires, the buffered PDU N is forwarded to one or more upper layers and the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is started. In action 204, the PDU N-2 arrives and is forwarded, e.g. immediately forwarded, to one or more upper layers. ¶ [0071]. During the time when the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is running, any late PDUs that are received by the PDCP receiver, will immediately be forwarded to higher layers. Thus, they will be forwarded in any order to the higher layers, i.e. they may be forwarded out of sequence number order to the higher layers. ¶ [0118]. Where it is implicit that the process of forwarding the received/buffered PDUs based on t-Reordering and/or t-WaitForLatePDU is repeated for the next missing/late (fourth) PDUs.).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the timer is shorter than a length of the reordering timer (¶ [0074], a t-Reordering timer (i.e., the timer) set to 20 ms and a t-WaitForLatePDUs timer (i.e., the reordering timer different from the timer) set to 120 ms to wait for late PDUs are used. ¶ [0015]-¶ [0018], [0146], In some other embodiments, the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is started at the same time as the t-Reordering timer. ¶ [0157] t-Reordering=3*HARQ RTT (e.g. 3*HARQ transmissions round trip time in a 3GPP system like LTE, ˜16 ms). ¶ [0158] t-WaitForLatePDUs=2*RLC ARQ RTT (e.g. 2*RLC ARQ transmissions round trip time in a 3GPP system like LTE, ˜72 ms)).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising starting the timer and the reordering timer based at least in part on detecting that the third packet is out of order (¶ [0015]-¶ [0018], [0146], In some other embodiments, the t-WaitForLatePDUs timer is started at the same time as the t-Reordering timer.).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a length of the timer is based at least in part on a hybrid automatic repeat request round trip time of the receiver device (¶ [0146], ¶ [0148], ¶ [0157] t-Reordering=3*HARQ RTT (e.g. 3*HARQ transmissions round trip time in a 3GPP system like LTE, ˜16 ms). ¶ [0158] t-WaitForLatePDUs=2*RLC ARQ RTT (e.g. 2*RLC ARQ transmissions round trip time in a 3GPP system like LTE, ˜72 ms)).
Regarding claims 31 and 33, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 12, wherein a length of the timer is equal to the hybrid automatic repeat request round trip time (¶ [0146], where the timer is set to approximately equal or preferably slightly less than a Round-trip Time (RTT) used by the higher layer, such as the TCP RTT).
Regarding claims 32 and 34, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the length of the timer is greater than the hybrid automatic repeat request round trip time (¶ [0148], [0157] t-Reordering=3*HARQ RTT (e.g. 3*HARQ transmissions round trip time in a 3GPP system like LTE, ˜16 ms). ¶ [0158] t-WaitForLatePDUs=2*RLC ARQ RTT (e.g. 2*RLC ARQ transmissions round trip time in a 3GPP system like LTE, ˜72 ms)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 10, 11, 13, 23, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittberg in view of Dalmiya et al. (US 2021/0314270 A1, hereinafter “Dalmiya”).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 23 and 24, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Wittberg does not explicitly teach further comprising starting the timer based at least in part on a traffic type of one or more of the plurality of packets.
Dalmiya teaches starting the timer based at least in part on a traffic type of one or more of the plurality of packets, wherein the traffic type is associated with a loss-based congestion configuration (¶ [0061], ¶ [0089], ¶ [0067], ¶ [0070], and ¶ [0086]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to start the timer based at least in part on a traffic type of one or more of the plurality of packets, wherein the traffic type is associated with a loss-based congestion configuration, in the system of Wittberg to further enhance system efficiency and reliability (¶ [0070] of Dalmiya).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Wittberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Wittberg does not explicitly teach wherein a length of the timer is based at least in part on a number of hybrid automatic repeat request retransmissions of the receiver device.
Dalmiya teaches wherein a length of the timer is based at least in part on a number of hybrid automatic repeat request retransmissions of the receiver device (¶ [0086], ¶ [0087], ¶ [0088], ¶ [0089]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a length of the timer based at least in part on a number of hybrid automatic repeat request retransmissions of the receiver device in the system of Wittberg to further enhance system efficiency and reliability (¶ [0070] of Dalmiya).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 8 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments filed on April 15, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 PM).
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights