DETAILED ACTION
This second non-final office action is being issued in view of rejection of some claim elements was not clearly articulated in the prior office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
One of the IDSs submitted on 7/6/2023 could not be annotated because of its size having 1109 pages with an NPL attached to it (system is crashing any time the IDS is tried to be edited). Need to detach the NPL and resubmit the IDS.
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.
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.
Claims 13-16, 18-23, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R2-2008867, “Dynamic PTM and PTP switching with service continuity”, hereinafter “OPPO”, in view of R2-2009155, “Discussion on dynamic PTM PTP switch”, source Spreadtrum Communications, hereinafter “Spreadtrum”.
Regarding claim 13, OPPO teaches, receive an indication to switch from a first transmission mode to a second transmission mode (OPPO: Proposal 2: The MBS switching between PTM and PTP is under network control, FFS via DCI or MAC CE);
based on the indication, switch from the first transmission mode to the second transmission mode (implied based on the control signal received from the network).
Though OPPO does not expressly teach, a wireless transmit-receive unit (WTRU), and a processor, they are implied.
OPPO however fails to teach, extend a data packet reception window by extending a boundary of the data packet reception window, wherein the boundary is extended by an offset.
In the same field of endeavor Spreadtrum teaches in §2, second bullet, “Service continuity of dynamic PTM PTP switch”, loss of packets during transition (illustrated in Figure 2 Packets in the air during switching). A possible solution to avoid the packet loss is discussed in “the UE will continue receiving the data from old leg till the gap between the data transmissions in two leg is filled or the UE received a same PDCP PDU from two legs if reordering function is configured in PDCP “.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Spreadtrum with that of OPPO, “ In order to guarantee service continuity during the dynamic PTM PTP switch”, as disclosed by Spreadtrum in §2. “Continuing receiving the data from the old leg till the gap between the data transmission in two leg is filled”, is equivalent to extend a data packet reception window by extending a boundary of the data packet reception window, as per the claim. The offset as per the claim, may be equated with the gap as per disclosure in Spreadtrum.
The claim, receive a data packet; and add the data packet to a reception buffer for processing, is implied being a general process of storing received packets not-in-sequence for later processing, when the missing packet is received.
The claim, wherein the addition is based on a SN of the data packet being within an extended part of the extended data packet reception window, though not expressly taught by combination of Spreadtrum, would have been obvious based on the accepted process of adding a packet to the buffer when its serial number dictates that an earlier packet with lesser SN is missing, which in the current scenario are the packets in the air as shown in Fig.2
Regarding claim 14, combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum teaches the WTRU of claim 13 (discussed above), wherein the first transmission mode is associated with a first RNTI and the second transmission mode is associated with a second RNTI, and wherein the processor is further configured to:
based on the switch from the first transmission mode to the second transmission mode, monitor for a PDCCH transmission via use of the second RNTI (OPPO: “If the UE intend to make the UE to receive the MBS service via PTM, the network will configure the PTM related configuration, e.g. TMGI, G-RNTI and physical channel configuration. If UE receive MBS service via PTP, the UE may be configured at least one DRB for MBS service up to the protocol stack defined for MBS transmission. The logical channel of the MBS can be multiplexed with logical channel of eMBB in one MAC PDU. So, we think the C-RNTI will be used for the PTP MBS scheduling.”).
Regarding claim 15, combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum teaches the WTRU of claim 14 (discussed above), wherein the boundary of the data packet reception window is a starting edge of the data packet reception window (implied).
Though not expressly taught by the combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the claim element, wherein extending the boundary of the data packet reception window comprises setting a first value of the starting edge to a second value that is lower than a sequence number (SN) associated with received data by the offset, based on the fact that the window is extended for not losing any packet due to switching the states and the starting edge should accommodate a sequence number lower than the most recent received. Determination of the offset would be a choice of implementation based on factors like delay tolerance, switching time etc.)
Regarding claim 16, combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum teaches the WTRU of claim 15 (discussed above), wherein the extended part of the extended data packet reception window is a part of the extended data packet reception window that starts at the second value and ends at the SN (implied based on how the extended window is configured based on the SN and disclosed by Spreadtrum where the extended reception window is to accommodate the packets in the air and receive window extension is to fill the gap as discussed above in claim 13).
Regarding claim 18, combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum teaches the WTRU of claim 13 (discussed above), wherein the first transmission mode is a point-to-point (PTP) transmission mode and the second transmission mode is a point-to-multipoint (PTM) transmission mode (OPPO in case 2 discussed switching from PTP to PTM).
Regarding claim 19, combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum teaches the WTRU of claim 18 (discussed above), wherein the indication is based on reception of a radio link control (RLC) data packet via an RLC entity associated with the PTM transmission mode, and wherein the WTRU is operating in the PTP transmission mode (implied based on discussion above in claim 13 regarding switching from PTP mode to PTM mode and discussion above in claim 18).
Regarding claim 27, combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum teaches the WTRU of claim 14 (discussed above), wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a G-RNTI; and determine, based on the reception of the G-RNTI, that the WTRU is authorized to participate in multicast operation (implied based on discussion above in claim 14 that G-RNTI is used by the network for multicast operation).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of R2-2009305, “.Service Continuity during Dynamic PTM/PTP Switch with Logical Channel Aggregation”, source Futurewei, hereinafter “Futurewei”
Regarding claim 28, combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum teaches the WTRU of claim 13 (discussed above), wherein the boundary of the data packet reception window is extended (discussed above in claim 13).
Combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum however fails to expressly teach, wherein the boundary of the data packet reception window is extended based on state variables, wherein the state variables comprise RX_next_reassambly and RX_next_highest (Futurewei:
PNG
media_image1.png
366
1448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Futurewei with that of the combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum for “lossless and in-order delivery, and the same level of reliability, can be maintained during dynamic PTM/PTP switch”, as discussed by Futurewei in observation 1.
Regarding claim 29, combination of OPPO, Spreadtrum and Futurewei teaches the WTRU of claim 28 (discussed above), wherein RX_next_reassambly and RX_next_highest are received in a message (implied based on the disclosure regarding initialization and maintenance of related state variables as discussed above in claim 28 and disclosure 1 in Futurewei “If UE is not configured with split bearer like MBS protocol structure but configured only with MTCH or DTCH, dynamic PTM/PTP switch involves RRC reconfiguration to switch the MBS service to the split bearer like MBS radio bearer; RRC reconfiguration in the disclosure implies reception of a message, as per the claim), and
wherein the indication to switch from the first transmission mode to the second transmission mode is indicated via the message (discussed above in RRC reconfiguration process).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Futurewei with that of the combination of OPPO and Spreadtrum in order to support split bearer like design as discussed in [Introduction] in Futurewei.
Regarding claim 30, combination of OPPO, Spreadtrum and Futurewei teaches the WTRU of claim 29 (discussed above), wherein the message is an RRC reconfiguration message (discussed above in claim 29 as per disclosure by Futurewei, “dynamic PTM/PTP switch involves RRC reconfiguration to switch the MBS service to the split bearer like MBS radio bearer”).
Claims 20-23, 25-26, 31-34 are for method performed by the WTRU of claim 13. Claim elements are discussed above in claims 13-16, 18-19, and 27-30.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462