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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TS 38.322 V2.0.0 (2017-12)) in view of XIAO et al (US 2021/0218501)
Regarding claim 1, 7, 13, 14, 3GPP discloses a method performed by an acknowledge mode (AM) radio link control (RLC) entity of a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (3GPP: Fig. 4.2.1-1, Page 7-8, AM RLC entity of a UE), the method comprising:
generating a plurality of RLC protocol data units (PDUs) without waiting for a notification from of a transmission opportunity from a medium access control (MAC) layer of the UE based on receiving a respective RLC service data unit (SDU), wherein a transmit state variable is updated for each of the plurality of generated RLC PDUs (3GPP: Page 8, Each RLC SDU is used to construct an RLC PDU without waiting for notification from the lower layer (i.e., by MAC) of a transmission opportunity);
submitting one or more RLC PDUs, which is a subset of the plurality of generated RLC PDUs to the MAC layer based on the transmission opportunity being notified by the MAC layer, wherein the one or more RLC PDUs comprise a first RLC PDU having a poll related to triggering a status report at a peer AM RLC entity (3GPP: Page 8, Page 19, based on a transmission opportunity, at least one RLC PDUs is submitted to the MAC layer; Page 20, Section 5.3.3.2, AMD PDU including poll);
starting or restarting a poll retransmission timer based on a submission of the first RLC PDU (3GPP: Page 19, a t-PollRetransmit is started upon submitting the AMD PDU to the lower (MAC) layer);
determining an RLC SDU among one or more RLC SDU included in the one or more RLC PDUs submitted to the MAC layer based on expiry of the poll retransmission timer, and no new RLC SDU being able to be transmitted (3GPP: Page 20, Page 7, upon expiration or the poll timer (t-PollRetransmit), the RLC PDU is transmitted to the receiving side; select an RLC SDU that has been submitted to MAC layer for transmission (this is part of transmission by the transmitting RLC entity), but not previously acknowledged i.e. unacknowledged);
generating a second RLC PDU, comprising the determined RLC SDU the RLC SDU considered for the retransmission; and submitting the second RLC PDU to the MAC layer (3GPP: Page 20, construct the AMD PDU based on the selected RLC SDU and transmitting to the lower layer).
3GPP remains silent regarding determining an RLC SDU with the highest sequence number among all of the one or more RLC SDUs submitted for the transmission opportunity for retransmission.
However, XIAO et al (US 2021/0218501) discloses determining an RLC SDU with the highest sequence number among all of the one or more RLC SDUs submitted for the transmission opportunity for retransmission. (XIAO: ¶51, ¶60, ¶63, the SNs of the data units not yet acknowledged by the receiving side and the highest sequence number is selected).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of 3GPP would have been motivated to use the teachings of XIAO as it provides resolving a processing process of a poll flow at a transmitting side of an AM RLC entity (¶3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of 3GPP with teachings of XIAO in order to improve poll flow.
Regarding claim 3, 9, 3GPP modified by XIAO discloses method according to claim 1/7, wherein generating the second RLC PDU comprises setting the poll related to triggering the status report at the peer AM RLC entity in the second RLC PDU (3GPP: Page 20, section 5.3.4 include the poll in the constructed AMD PDU which is for the status reporting).
Regarding claim 5, 11, 3GPP modified by XIAO discloses method according to claim 1/7, wherein the SN of the determined RLC SDU is smaller than a highest SN among SNs of a plurality of RLC SDUs included in the plurality of generated RLC PDUs (3GPP: Page 16, Page 8, the latest AMD PDU constructed has higher SN than the AMD PDU submitted to the MAC layer/lower layer; the constructed highest SN is greater than the retransmitted higher SN i.e. less than TX_Next).
Regarding claim 15, 17, 3GPP modified by XIAO discloses method according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein the transmit state variable is incremented by one for each of the plurality of generated RLC PDUs (3GPP: page 16, increment by one XIAO: ¶37, POLL_SN is set to the highest).
Regarding claim 16, 18, 3GPP modified by XIAO discloses method according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more RLC PDUs submitted for the transmission opportunity contains either a not previously transmitted RLC SDU or an RLC SDU segment containing a not previously transmitted byte segment (3GPP: Page 19, 5.3.3.2, the not previously transmitted RLC SDU segment or RLC SDU or a byte segment).
Double Patenting
Rejections withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on 4/14/2024
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
644
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Applicants take a first position that reference 3GPP modified by XIAO does not disclose " (a) "wherein a transmit state variable is updated for each of the plurality of generated RLC PDUs", (b) "submitting one or more RLC PDUs, which is a subset of the plurality of generated RLC PDUs, to the MAC layer based on the transmission opportunity being notified by the MAC layer," and (c) "generating a second RLC PDU comprising the determined RLC SDU for the retransmission and the poll"”
As an initial note, Examiner respectfully submits that no particular arguments were presented to support this first position i.e. limitation/features (a) and (c). Applicants relied upon a proposed amendment that was different than the claims filed with the amendment and was not accepted by the Applicants at the time of the proposal. Whether the support exists in the disclosure of the application for the proposed amendment is beyond the scope of this Office Action as the amendments were not entered.
Examiner, however, points to the sections of 3GPP and XIAO that teach features (a), (b) and (c).
(a) "wherein a transmit state variable is updated for each of the plurality of generated RLC PDUs"
On page 31, 3GPP defines the state variable that is updated upon construction of an RLC PDU:
b) TX_Next – Send state variable
This state variable holds the value of the SN to be assigned for the next newly generated AMD PDU. It is initially set to 0, and is updated whenever the AM RLC entity constructs an AMD PDU with SN = TX_Next and contains an RLC SDU or the last segment of a RLC SDU.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the above as teaching feature (a) of the invention of claim 1.
(b) "submitting one or more RLC PDUs, which is a subset of the plurality of generated RLC PDUs, to the MAC layer based on the transmission opportunity being notified by the MAC layer,"
On Page 8, 3GPP recites, that multiple RLC PDUs are submitted to the lower (MAC) layer after being generated at the RLC layer.
Each RLC SDU is used to construct an RLC PDU without waiting for notification from the lower layer (i.e., by MAC) of a transmission opportunity. In the case of UM and AM RLC entities, an RLC SDU may be segmented and transported using two or more RLC PDUs based on the notification(s) from the lower layer.
RLC PDUs are submitted to lower layer only when a transmission opportunity has been notified by lower layer (i.e. by MAC).
(See Page 8 of 3GPP)
An AM RLC entity consists of a transmitting side and a receiving side. The transmitting side of an AM RLC entity receives RLC SDUs from upper layer and sends RLC PDUs to its peer AM RLC entity via lower layers. The receiving side of an AM RLC entity delivers RLC SDUs to upper layer and receives RLC PDUs from its peer AM RLC entity via lower layers.
(See Page 7 of 3GPP)
The transmitting side of an AM RLC entity generates AMD PDU(s) for each RLC SDU. When notified of a transmission opportunity by the lower layer, the transmitting AM RLC entity shall segment the RLC SDUs, if needed, so that the corresponding AMD PDUs, with RLC headers updated as needed, fit within the total size of RLC PDU(s) indicated by lower layer.
(See Page 11 of 3GPP)
Upon expiry of t-PollRetransmit, the transmitting side of an AM RLC entity shall:
- if both the transmission buffer and the retransmission buffer are empty (excluding transmitted RLC SDU or RLC SDU segment awaiting acknowledgements); or
- if no new RLC SDU or RLC SDU segment can be transmitted (e.g. due to window stalling):
- consider the RLC SDU with SN = TX_Next – 1 for retransmission; or
- consider any RLC SDU which has not been positively acknowledged for retransmission;
- include a poll in an AMD PDU as described in section 5.3.3.2.
(see Page 20 of 3GPP)
The above indicates there are PDUs that are generated but not submitted to the lower layer for transmission at the RLC entity. An RLC PDU is submitted and then, when a condition of window stalling occurs, an RLC SDU is selected from unacknowledged RLC PDUs. The unacknowledged RLC PDUs are at least one of a proper and an improper subset of the generated RLC PDUs as they are already generated and submitted once. Also, based on Page 8’s teachings above, there is at lease one unsubmitted RLC PDU.
3GPP remains silent regarding determining an RLC SDU with the highest sequence number among all of the one or more RLC SDUs submitted for the transmission opportunity for retransmission.
However, XIAO et al (US 2021/0218501) discloses determining an RLC SDU with the highest sequence number among all of the one or more RLC SDUs submitted for the transmission opportunity for retransmission. (XIAO: ¶51, ¶60, ¶63, the SNs of the data units not yet acknowledged by the receiving side and the highest sequence number is selected).
[0051] In an embodiment, if both the transmission buffer and the retransmission buffer (excluding a transmitted RLC SDU or RLC SDU segment awaiting acknowledgments) are empty, or no new RLC SDU or RLC SDU segment can be transmitted (for example, due to window stalling), then an RLC SDU or AMD PDU having been transmitted in a transmission opportunity indicated by the lower layer and awaiting acknowledgments and with (or associated with) the highest sequence number SN is retransmitted. The sequence number SN satisfies TX_Next_Ack<=SN<=TX_Next or TX_Next_Ack<=SN<TX_Next_Ack+AM_Window_Size.
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of 3GPP would have been motivated to use the teachings of XIAO as it provides resolving a processing process of a poll flow at a transmitting side of an AM RLC entity (¶3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of 3GPP with teachings of XIAO in order to improve poll flow.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the above as teaching feature (b) of the invention of claim 1.
(c) "generating a second RLC PDU comprising the determined RLC SDU for the retransmission and the poll"
On Page 20, 3GPP recites:
Upon expiry of t-PollRetransmit, the transmitting side of an AM RLC entity shall:
- if both the transmission buffer and the retransmission buffer are empty (excluding transmitted RLC SDU or RLC SDU segment awaiting acknowledgements); or
- if no new RLC SDU or RLC SDU segment can be transmitted (e.g. due to window stalling):
- consider the RLC SDU with SN = TX_Next – 1 for retransmission; or
- consider any RLC SDU which has not been positively acknowledged for retransmission;
- include a poll in an AMD PDU as described in section 5.3.3.2.
(see Page 20 of 3GPP)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the above as teaching of feature (c) of the invention of claim 1.
All arguments are based on the arguments addressed above and, therefore, fully addressed as above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461