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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 11/19/2025 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
2. This is in response to communication filed on 11/19/2025 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
3. Newly submitted claims 1-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The newly submitted claims clearly recites a receiving from a base station configuration information that will discard the PDU SDU. Even though both claims recite the limitation of discarding, the original claim is discarding based on the congestion state that is being identified.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
4. The amendment filed on 11/19/2058 canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to a non-elected invention is non-responsive (MPEP § 821.03) and has not been entered. The remaining claims are not readable on the elected invention because the newly submitted claims are directed to an invention that is independent and distinct form the invention that originally received an action on the merit.
Since the above-mentioned amendment appears to be a bona fide attempt to reply, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) ARE AVAILABLE but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133).
This Office action includes an action on the merits of the claims previously selected for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. . 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 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-12, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0367090 to Zhang et al.
a. As per claim 1, Zhang et al teaches a method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: identifying a start of a congestion state based on insufficiency in resources for uplink data or a burst state related to an increase of the uplink data (See paragraph [0026, 0036], In operation 203, if the network is determined as congested (e.g. if a DNN is determined as congested); identifying, based on identification of the start of the congestion state or the burst state, whether to perform a discard operation for a protocol data unit (PDU) of unlink data or a PDU set comprising at least one PDU (See paragraph [0029], the SMF may release a PDU session towards this congested DNN. The SMF may decide to release a PDU Session under the scenario that the SMF receives the CM-IDLE state notification of the UE from AMF, if the SMF has already rejected the PDU session modification request from the UE due the congested DNN); performing, based on the identification, the discard operation for the PDU or the PDU set based on a priority configured based on importance of the PDU or the PDU set (See paragraph [0029, 0034]); and stopping the performance of the discard operation, based on an end of the congestion state or the burst state (See paragraph [0031 and 0035]).
b. As per claim 11, Zhang et al teaches a terminal in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising: a transceiver configured to transmit or receive a signal; and at least one processor connected to the transceiver (See paragraph [0058]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a start of a congestion state based on insufficiency in resources for uplink data or a burst state related to an increase of the uplink data (See paragraph [0026, 0036], In operation 203, if the network is determined as congested (e.g. if a DNN is determined as is), identify, based on identification of the start of the congestion state or the burst state, whether to perform a discard operation for a protocol data unit (PDU) of unlink data or a PDU set comprising at least one PDU (See paragraph [0029], the SMF may release a PDU session towards this congested DNN. The SMF may decide to release a PDU Session under the scenario that the SMF receives the CM-IDLE state notification of the UE from AMF, if the SMF has already rejected the PDU session modification request from the UE due the congested DNN), perform, based on the identification, the discard operation for the PDU or the PDU set based on a priority configured based on importance of the PDU or the PDU set (See paragraph [0029 and 0034]), and stop the performance of the discard operation, based on an end of the congestion state or the burst state (See paragraph [0031 and 0035]).
c. As per claims 2 and 12, Zhang et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Zhang et al teaches wherein the identifying of the start of the congestion state or the burst state comprises: receiving a message indicating the start of the congestion state or the burst state from a base station, and wherein the start of the congestion state or the burst state is identified based on the message (See paragraph [0029-0030 and 0035]).
d. As per claims 5 and 15, Zhang et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Zhang et al teaches further comprising transmitting, to the base station, information on whether the terminal supports an identification function of the terminal for the congestion state or the burst state (See paragraph [0004 and 0016]).
e. As per claims 6 and 16, Zhang et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Zhang et al teaches wherein the information on whether the terminal supports an identification function of the terminal for the congestion state or the burst state comprises at least one of information on whether to support a congestion state identification function, information on a type of a congestion state identification condition supported, information on whether to support a burst state identification function, information on a type of a burst state identification condition supported, information on a type of information receivable and usable by a higher layer, or information on an indication or report transmittable/receivable to/from a higher layer (See paragraph [0037-0042 and 0051]).
f. As per claims 7 and 17, Zhang et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Zhang et al teaches further comprising transmitting, to the base station, information indicating an end of the burst state (See paragraph .
g. As per claims 9 and 19, Zhang et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Zhang et al teaches wherein the identifying of whether to perform the discard operation corresponds to identifying whether to perform the discard operation further considering a message indicating application of the discard operation based on the priority (See paragraph [0029 and 0034]).
h. As per claims 10 and 20, Zhang et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Zhang et al teaches wherein the priority is configured by the base station or a core network connected to the base station (See paragraph [0029 and 0034]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
7. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0367090 to Zhang et al. in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0141700 to Hedman et al.
a. As per claims 8 and 18, The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a report with respect to the congestion state or the burst state to the base station, based on the identification with respect to the start of the congestion state or the burst state.
Hedman et al teaches transmitting a report with respect to the congestion state or the burst state to the base station, based on the identification with respect to the start of the congestion state or the burst state (See paragraph [0115, 0187]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hedman et al in the claimed invention of Zhang et al in order to report status data.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3-4, 13-14 allowed.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2021/0168650 to Mok et al teaches Method and Device for Transmitting Data Packet In Wireless Communication System.
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444