DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 01/02/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 9, 11, 17, and 20 were amended, and all uncancelled claims remain pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 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. The prior art does not fairly teach the limitations of claims 9 and 20 which describe “quality of service (QoS) policies for PDU-SETs that are based on PDU-SET types” such as PDU-SETs that are “enabled for the URLLC” as well as “PCC policies that are based on the QoS policies” in combination with those of the independent claims 1 and 17 upon which they depend, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains an apparent typo (“a user plane function (UPF) ... apply a PDU-SET filter”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2025/0168260 A1, hereinafter “Yang”) – cited in the 892 form dated 10/02/2025 – in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0352525 A1, hereinafter “Hong”) and further in view of Goto et al. (US 2021/0243784 A1, hereinafter “Goto”).
As to Claims 1 and 11:
Yang describes methods to filter and potentially discard PDUs based on their importance.
Specifically, regarding the claim limitations described by claims 1 and 11, Yang teaches:
Receiving, at a user plane function (UPF), a protocol data unit set (PDU-SET) comprising protocol data units (PDUs) and an indicator of an importance of the PDU-SET
Fig. 3 in Yang and its accompanying description show that “the UPF 302 maps the DL packets ... corresponding to PDU sets of different priority levels” (Yang, 0084, Fig. 3).
The UPF stores a PDU-SET filter
Fig. 3 in Yang and its accompanying description show that “the user plane function (UPF) 302 ... by using the conventional packet filtering ... further classifies the identified RTP/UDP/IP packets” (Yang, 0084, Fig. 3).
Applying the PDU-SET filter to the PDU-SET to determine a reliability level for transmitting the PDU-SET based on the indicator of importance of the PDU-SET
Fig. 3 in Yang and its accompanying description show that after “using the conventional packet filtering”, the “UPF 302 maps the DL packets ... corresponding PDU sets of different priority levels and/or different reliability requirements to different QoS flows” (Yang, 0084, Fig. 3).
A real-time transport protocol (RTP) header of at least one of the PDUs
Fig. 3 in Yang and its accompanying description show that “the user plane function (UPF) 302 ... further classifies the identified RTP/UDP/IP packets by inspecting various fields in the RTP header” (Yang, 0084, Fig. 3).
Yang also describes the limitations specific to claim 11 which require:
A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors
See, for example, Fig. 12A in Yang and the accompanying description in paragraph 0170.
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
Modifying how the PDU-SET is transmitted along a given portion of a transmission path from the UPF to a user equipment (UE) to increase a reliability for the transmission of the PDUs of the PDU-SET along the given portion
Maintaining unmodified the given portion of the transmission path for the transmission of the PDUs of the PDU-SET along the given portion
However, Hong does describe a method for configuring duplicate radio links to transfer a single stream of PDU packets.
Specifically, Hong teaches:
Modifying how the PDU-SET is transmitted along a given portion of a transmission path from the UPF to a user equipment (UE) to increase a reliability for the transmission of the PDUs of the PDU-SET along the given portion
Hong states that “when multiple RLC entities are configured for duplicate transmission, RLC entities for transmitting one or more PDCP PDUs may be differently selected” (Hong, 0119, 0120). Fig. 1 in Hong also shows an example network with different possible paths a packet can take. Here, “RLC entities ... may be differently selected” equates to “modifying how the PDU-SET is transmitted” because this creates an alternate path for a packet to take, increasing reliability.
Maintaining unmodified the given portion of the transmission path for the transmission of the PDUs of the PDU-SET along the given portion
Paragraphs 0119-0120 of Hong teach that “when configuring duplicate transmissions for one DRB, RRC sets an initial state (activation or deactivation)” and “when multiple RLC entities are configured for duplicate transmission, RLC entities for transmitting one or more PDCP PDUs may be differently selected” (Hong, 0119, 0120). Also, Fig. 1 in Hong shows an example network with paths throughout. If the “RLC entities” are not “differently selected” but instead kept the same, this amounts to “maintaining unmodified the given portion of the transmission path”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the packet duplication described in Hong based on the levels of packet priority derived from PDU-SET filters outlined in Yang. Packet duplication is a common fault-tolerance technique that can ensure fault tolerance for an important PDU session.
The combination of Yang and Hong does not explicitly disclose:
Whether the PDU-SET is enabled for ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) is indicated by information in a ... header
However, Goto does describe methods for a terminal to configure parameters of uplink traffic.
Specifically, Goto teaches:
Whether the PDU-SET is enabled for ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) is indicated by information in a ... header
Paragraph 0170 of Goto states that “the terminal apparatus notifies of the uplink data transmission type (eMBB/URLLC) by the MAC header” (Goto, 0170). Paragraph 0044 adds that data may include “a Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU)” (Goto, 0044).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the RTP headers described in Yang to indicate if a PDU-SET is enabled for URLLC, as taught in Goto. Indicating if traffic is URLLC enabled can help identify the appropriate QoS level for a PDU-SET.
As to Claims 5, 14, and 19:
Yang teaches:
Increasing the redundancy of the PDUs sent over the given portion of the transmission path
Paragraph 0003 of Yang describes “the packet data convergence protocol (PDCP)” which “provides various functions, such as ... packet duplication” (Yang, 0003). It would be obvious to apply this “packet duplication” to the “PDU sets of different priority levels and/or different reliability requirements” mentioned in paragraph 0084 of Yang that have higher priority or higher reliability requirements.
Paragraphs 0119-0120 and 0158-0159 of Hong also describe configuring duplicate transmissions for a specific path between base stations.
As to Claims 6 and 15:
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
When the given portion of the transmission path includes transmissions from a next generation nodeB (gNB) to the UE
The redundancy of the PDUs transmitted from the gNB to the UE is increased by: Transmitting the PDUs received at the gNB from the gNB to the UE
Transmitting, from the gNB to another gNB, duplicates of the PDUs received at the gNB
Transmitting the duplicates of the PDUs from the another gNB to the UE
The PDUs of the PDU-SET are transmitted from the gNB to the UE and no duplicates of the PDUs are transmitted to the another gNB
However, Hong does teach:
When the given portion of the transmission path includes transmissions from a next generation nodeB (gNB) to the UE
Paragraphs 0158-0159 of Hong describe “duplicate transmission paths to be configured in a UE” from “one cell group (MCG or master node)”.
The redundancy of the PDUs transmitted from the gNB to the UE is increased by: Transmitting the PDUs received at the gNB from the gNB to the UE
Paragraphs 0158-0159 of Hong state that “[w]hen a base station desires two or more duplicate transmission paths to be configured in a UE, various combinations of duplicate transmission paths may be provided ... Firstly, three duplicate transmission paths may be configured in one cell group (MCG or master node)” (Hong, 0158, 0159).
Transmitting, from the gNB to another gNB, duplicates of the PDUs received at the gNB
Paragraphs 0158-0159 of Hong describe how “three duplicate transmission paths may be configured in one cell group (MCG or master node)” to “another cell group (SCG 1 or secondary node 1)”.
Transmitting the duplicates of the PDUs from the another gNB to the UE
Paragraph 0159 of Hong states that “one duplicate transmission path may be configured in another cell group (SCG 1 or secondary node 1)” with the UE as the implicit destination (Hong, 0159).
The PDUs of the PDU-SET are transmitted from the gNB to the UE and no duplicates of the PDUs are transmitted to the another gNB
Paragraphs 0119-0120 of Hong state that certain conditions may cause “the duplicate transmission” to be “deactivated” (Hong, 0119, 0120).
Although the limitations of Claim 15 are not semantically identical to those of Claim 6, they claim substantially the same subject matter and are rendered obvious by the same passages from Hong.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the packet duplication described in Hong based on the levels of packet priority derived from PDU packet filters outlined in Yang. Packet duplication is a common fault-tolerance technique that can aptly apply to a more important PDU session.
As to Claim 7:
Yang teaches:
When more than one copy of the PDUs is transmitted and received for the given portion of the transmission path, eliminating duplicated copies of the received PDUs to reduce a number of copies to one per PDU
Paragraph 0003 of Yang describes “the packet data convergence protocol (PDCP)” which “provides various functions, such as ... duplicate detection and discarding” (Yang, 0003).
As to Claims 8 and 16:
Regarding the limitations shared by claims 8 and 16, Yang does not explicitly disclose:
When the given portion of the transmission path includes transmissions from the UPF to a next generation nodeB (gNB), the redundancy of the PDUs sent from the UPF to the gNB is increased by: duplicating the PDUs received at the UPF, and transmitting, to the gNB, both the PDUs received at the UPF and the duplicated PDUs
However, Hong does teach:
When the given portion of the transmission path includes transmissions from the UPF to a next generation nodeB (gNB), the redundancy of the PDUs sent from the UPF to the gNB is increased by: duplicating the PDUs received at the UPF, and transmitting, to the gNB, both the PDUs received at the UPF and the duplicated PDUs
Paragraphs 0157 and 0159 of Hong state that “when duplicate transmission for a radio bearer is activated ... duplicate transmission is activated through the transmission paths ... [T]here duplicate transmission paths may be configured in one cell group (MCG or master node)” (Hong, 0157, 0159). Fig. 1 of Hong further shows example transmission paths through a network that begin at the “UPF” end at a “gNB”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the packet duplication described in Hong based on the levels of packet priority derived from PDU packet filters outlined in yang. Packet duplication is a common fault-tolerance technique that can aptly apply to a more important PDU session.
As to Claim 10:
Yang teaches:
Marking the PDUs of the PDU-SET ... with a reliability level that is a first predefined level
Paragraph 0084 of Yang describes “PDU sets of different ... reliability requirements”.
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
The PDUs of the PDU-SET that are URLLC enabled
However, Hong does teach:
PDUs of the PDU-SETs that are URLLC enabled
Paragraph 0081 of Hong describes “PDUs of the PDU session” which paragraph 0109 clarifies are “capable of satisfying of the URLLC requirements by dynamically controlling duplicate transmission” (Hong, 0081, 0109).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the packet duplication described in Hong based on the levels of packet priority derived from PDU packet filters outlined in Yang. Packet duplication is a common fault-tolerance technique that can aptly apply to a more important PDU session.
As to Claim 17:
Yang teaches:
A content server that transmits a protocol data unit set (PDU-SET) comprising protocol data units (PDUs) and an indicator of an importance of the PDU-SET
Fig. 3 of Yang and its accompanying description state that “the UPF 302 maps the DL packets ... corresponding to PDU sets of different priority levels” (Yang, 0084, Fig. 3). Here, any device that sends packets to the “UPF 302” would fit the broadest reasonable definition of “a content server” because Yang expressly states these packets form a “DL video transmission”.
A user plane function (UPF) that receives the PDU-SET from the content server
“As shown in Fig. 3, the UPF 302 maps the DL packets ... corresponding to PDU sets of different priority levels” (Yang, 0084, Fig. 3). Again, the device transmitting to the “UPF” qualifies here as the “content server”.
Apply [sic] the PDU-SET filter to the PDU-SET to determine a reliability level for transmitting the PDU-SET based on the indicator of importance of the PDU-SET
Yang states that “using the conventional packet filtering”, the “UPF 302 maps the DL packets ... corresponding PDU sets of different priority levels and/or different reliability requirements to different QoS flows” (Yang, 0084, Fig. 3).
A real-time transport protocol (RTP) header of at least one of the PDUs
The description of Fig. 3 mentions “the RTP header” used to classify packets (Yang, 0084, Fig. 3).
A user equipment that receives the PDU-SET after the PDU-SET is transmitted from the UPF
Paragraph 0085 of Wang states that “[f]or DL video transmission, the UPF 302 forwards each classified RTP/UDP/IP packet ... to the NG-RAN node 308 (i.e. the gNB) serving the UE”, which also means the packet eventually reaches the served UE.
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
When the determined reliability level is a first predefined level, a given portion of a transmission path from the UPF to the user equipment (UE) is modified with respect to how the PDU-SET is transmitted along the given portion, and
Modification to the given portion increases a reliability for the transmission of the PDUs of the PDU-SET along the given portion; and
When the determined reliability level is not the first predefined level, the transmission of the PDUs of the PDU-SET along the given portion is maintained unmodified
However, Hong does teach:
When the determined reliability level is a first predefined level, a given portion of a transmission path from the UPF to the user equipment (UE) is modified with respect to how the PDU-SET is transmitted along the given portion, and
Paragraphs 0119-0120 in Hong describe how a parameter (“pdcp-Duplication”), which amounts to an implicit “reliability level”, modifies a path to a UE by requiring packet duplication. Paragraph 0051 of Hong also mentions a “user plane function (UPF) controlling user data”.
Modification to the given portion increases a reliability for the transmission of the PDUs of the PDU-SET along the given portion; and
Packet duplication described in paragraphs 0119-0120 of Hong increases the reliability of that transmission link because more duplicates of a packet make it more likely that one will survive and reach its destination.
Maintaining unmodified the given portion of the transmission path for the transmission of the PDUs of the PDU-SET along the given portion
If the “pdcp-Duplication” parameter described in paragraphs 0119-0120 of Hong is set to “false”, the transmission path will remain unmodified.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the packet duplication described in Hong based on the levels of packet priority derived from PDU-SET filters outlined in Yang. Packet duplication is a common fault-tolerance technique that can ensure fault tolerance for an important PDU session.
The combination of Yang and Hong does not explicitly disclose:
Whether the PDU-SET is enabled for ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) is indicated by information in a ... header
However, Goto does teach:
Whether the PDU-SET is enabled for ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) is indicated by information in a ... header
Paragraph 0170 of Goto states that “the terminal apparatus notifies of the uplink data transmission type (eMBB/URLLC) by the MAC header” (Goto, 0170). Paragraph 0044 adds that data may include “a Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU)” (Goto, 0044).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the RTP headers described in Yang to indicate if a PDU-SET is enabled for URLLC, as taught in Goto. Indicating if traffic is URLLC enabled can help identify the appropriate QoS level for a PDU-SET.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12-13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2025/0168260 A1) in view of Hong (US 2021/0352525 A1) and Goto (US 2021/0243784 A1) and further in view of Rao et al. (US 2025/0119785 A1, hereinafter “Rao”).
As to Claims 2, 12, and 18:
Regarding the limitations shared by claims 2, 12, and 18, Yang teaches:
Transmitting the PDUs of the PDU-SET from a radio access network (RAN) to the UE
Fig. 1B in Yang and its accompanying description in paragraphs 0071-0072 shows a “transmitting PDCP entity” which may be a “NG-RAN” node that “submits the PDCP PDU to its associated lower layer for the transmission” to a “Receiving PDCP Entity” in Fig. 1B such as a “UE”.
The combination of Yang, Hong, and Goto does not explicitly disclose:
Using an acknowledgement mode when transmitting the PDUs of the PDU-SET from a radio access network (RAN) to the UE
However, Rao does describe different methods for determining transmission parameters for PDU sets.
Specifically, Rao teaches:
Using an acknowledgement mode when transmitting the PDUs
Paragraph 0142 of Rao states that “configuration/assistance information that is received by the WTRU from the network may include mapping/forwarding configurations and/or parameters” wherein “configurations/parameters to be applied at different layers may include ... configurations/parameters for RLC (e.g., parameters for AM [acknowledgement mode])” and “a range of values associated with importance/priority info to identify in the PDUs” (Rao, 0142).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the acknowledgement mode described in Rao into Yang’s method for filtering PDU sets. Like the redundant paths described in Goto, the acknowledgement mode makes the system more fault tolerant by helping to identify failures in transmitting critical packets.
As to Claims 3, 4 and 13:
Regarding the limitations shared by Claims 3 and 13, Yang teaches:
A radio link control (RLC) protocol applied to transmit the PDUs from a next generation nodeB (gNB), which is the RAN, to the UE
Paragraph 0175 of Yang describes “the radio link control (RLC) sublayer” which transmits “RLC data PDUs” in a “PDU set”. Also, Fig. 1B shows that the “Transmitting PDCP entity” can be a “NG-RAN”, and the “Receiving PDCP entity” can be a “UE”.
The combination of Yang, Hong, and Goto does not explicitly disclose:
The acknowledgement mode is an acknowledged mode (AM) applied in a radio link control (RLC) protocol
However, Rao does teach:
The acknowledgement mode is an acknowledged mode (AM) applied in a radio link control (RLC) protocol
Paragraph 0142 of Rao describes “configurations/parameters for RLC (e.g., parameters for AM [acknowledgement mode])” (Rao, 0142).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the acknowledgement mode described in Rao into Yang’s method for filtering PDU sets. Like the redundant paths described in Goto, the acknowledgement mode makes the system more fault tolerant by helping to identify failures in transmitting critical packets.
Regarding the limitations shared by claims 4 and 13, the combination of Yang, Hong, and Goto does not explicitly disclose:
Transmitting the PDUs from the gNB to the UE using, in the RLC protocol, either an unacknowledged mode (UM) or a transparent mode (TM)
However, Rao does teach:
Transmitting the PDUs from the gNB to the UE using, in the RLC protocol, either an unacknowledged mode (UM) or a transparent mode (TM)
Paragraph 0142 of Rao describes “configurations/parameters for RLC (e.g., parameters for AM/UM/TM operation)” (Rao, 0142).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modes without explicit acknowledgement described in Rao into Yang’s method for filtering PDU sets. Less important packets will not need the fault tolerance afforded by acknowledgement mode, so it makes sense to use a different mode for such lower priority data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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 at (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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477