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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1,9,29 and 36 have been amended. Claims 6-7,14-15,33-34 and 40 have been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1,3-5,8-9,11-13,16,29,31-32,35-36 and 38-39 are pending in this application, with claims 1,9,29 and 36 being independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Dec,18 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1,3-5,8-9,11-13,16,29,31-32,35-36 and 38-39 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to a new ground of rejection being used in the current office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4,11-12,31 and 38 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.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1,9,29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parron et al. (WO2020/036928Al, hereinafter referred to as “Parron”)-IDS in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0400537 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”) and further in view of Oliver (GB2571260A, hereinafter referred to as “Oliver”).
Regarding Claims 1,9,29 and 36, Parron discloses a user equipment (UE) (Parron Fig.1 Page:2 A UE) and a network entity (Parron Fig.1 Page:2 A RAN (i.e. network entity)) to: receive, at a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, a plurality of PDCP PDUs from a radio link control (RLC) sublayer (Parron Fig.1 Page:3,9-12 The UE or RAN receives PDCP PDU at the PDCP layer), wherein each of the plurality of PDCP PDUs is associated with a respective data flow of a plurality of data flows (Parron Fig.1 Page:9-12 A data flow for a PDU session), and wherein each data flow of the plurality of data flows is mapped to a respective data radio bearer (DRB) of one or more DRBs (Parron Fig.1 Page:3,9-12 A DRB for the data flow); and enable, at the PDCP layer, PDCP out-of-order delivery (OOOD) of the plurality of PDCP PDUs associated with one or more data flows of the plurality of data flows of a DRB of the one or more DRBs to an upper layer (Parron Fig.1 Page:9-12 The UE or RAN implements Out of order delivery (i.e. no delay delivery) using tag) based on at least one of a number of the one or more data flows of the DRB (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Parron does not explicitly disclose enable, at the PDCP layer, PDCP out-of-order delivery (OOOD) of the plurality of PDCP PDUs associated with one or more data flows of the plurality of data flows of a DRB of the one or more DRBs to an upper layer based on a respective data rate of the one or more data flows.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses enable, at the PDCP layer, PDCP out-of-order delivery (OOOD) of the plurality of PDCP PDUs associated with one or more data flows of the plurality of data flows of a DRB of the one or more DRBs to an upper layer based on a respective data rate of the one or more data flows (Zhang Para[0254] For high throughput flows, out-of-order packets are sent to the upper layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Parron to have the feature of “enable, at the PDCP layer, PDCP out-of-order delivery (OOOD) of the plurality of PDCP PDUs associated with one or more data flows of the plurality of data flows of a DRB of the one or more DRBs to an upper layer based on a respective data rate of the one or more data flows” as taught by Zhang. The motivation would have been for service efficiency (Zhang Para[0002]).
Parron in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose enable, at the PDCP layer, PDCP out-of-order delivery (QOOD) of the plurality of PDCP PDUs associated with one or more data flows of the plurality of data flows of a DRB of the one or more DRBs to an upper layer based on a respective congestion window size of each of the one or more data flows.
However, Oliver from the same field of invention discloses enable, at the PDCP layer, PDCP out-of-order delivery (QOOD) of the plurality of PDCP PDUs associated with one or more data flows of the plurality of data flows of a DRB of the one or more DRBs to an upper layer based on a respective congestion window size of each of the one or more data flows (Oliver Page:16 The out-of-delivery is configured and packet sent to the upper layer when a buffer is congested).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Parron and Zhang to have the feature of “enable, at the PDCP layer, PDCP out-of-order delivery (QOOD) of the plurality of PDCP PDUs associated with one or more data flows of the plurality of data flows of a DRB of the one or more DRBs to an upper layer based on a respective congestion window size of each of the one or more data flows” as taught by Oliver. The motivation would have been to (Oliver Para[]).
Specifically for claims 1 and 9, Parron discloses the UE and the network entity that includes a processor (Parron Page:20 A processor) and a memory (Parron Page:20 A storage (i.e. memory)).
Claims 5,13 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parron in view of Zhang, Oliver and further in view of WANG et al. (US 2019/0268801 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claims 5,13 and 32, Parron in view of Zhang and Oliver discloses a method and a wireless device as explained above for Claim 1. Parron in view of Zhang and Oliver does not explicitly disclose disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the respective data rate of the corresponding individual data flow is above a threshold.
However, Wang from the same field of invention discloses disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the respective data rate of the corresponding individual data flow is above a threshold (Wang Fig.4 Para[0042-44] The out of delivery is not performed when threshold is crossed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Parron, Zhang and Oliver to have the feature of “disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the respective data rate of the corresponding individual data flow is above a threshold” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been to reduce data loss (Wang Para[0010]).
Claims 8,16 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parron in view of Zhang, Oliver and further in view of DEBBAGE et al. (US 2021/0119930 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Debbage”).
Regarding claims 8,16 and 35, Parron in view of Zhang and Oliver discloses a method and a wireless device as explained above for Claim 1. Parron in view of Zhang and Oliver does not explicitly disclose disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the congestion window size is above a threshold.
However, Debbage from the same field of invention discloses disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the congestion window size is above a threshold (Debbage Para[0076,0103] When congestion is detected, a traffic is moved from one path to another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Parron, Zhang and Oliver to have the feature of “disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the congestion window size is above a threshold” as taught by Debbage. The motivation would have been to reduce loan on network (Debbage Para[0002]).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parron in view of Zhang, Oliver and further in view of wang and further in view of Debbage.
Regarding claims 39, Parron in view of Zhang and Oliver discloses a method and a wireless device as explained above for Claim 1. Parron in view of Zhang and Oliver does not explicitly disclose disabling the PDCP 000D for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the respective data rate of the corresponding individual data flow is above a threshold or for which the congestion window size is above a threshold.
However, Wang from the same field of invention discloses disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the respective data rate of the corresponding individual data flow is above a threshold (Wang Fig.4 Para[0042-44] The out of delivery is not performed when threshold is crossed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Parron, Zhang and Oliver to have the feature of “disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the respective data rate of the corresponding individual data flow is above a threshold” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been to reduce data loss (Wang Para[0010]).
Parron in view of Zhang, Oliver and Wang does not explicitly disclose disabling the PDCP 000D for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the congestion window size is above a threshold
However, Debbage from the same field of invention discloses disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the congestion window size is above a threshold (Debbage Para[0076,0103] When congestion is detected, a traffic is moved from one path to another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Parron, Zhang, Oliver and Wang to have the feature of “disable the PDCP OOOD for each individual data flow of the one or more data flows of the DRB for which the congestion window size is above a threshold” as taught by Debbage. The motivation would have been to reduce loan on network (Debbage Para[0002]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415