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 Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 03/30/2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 20 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 18 is/are objected to.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, the claim contains the statement “determine, based at least on the first metric and the second metric and a mapping between the first metric, the second metric, and a plurality of entities for communication of the first PDU set and the second PDU set to a remote device, one or more selected entities"; however, the statement is unclear and vague. Does this statement mean that determine, based at least on the first metric and the second metric and a mapping between the first metric and the second metric, a plurality of entities for communication of the first PDU set and the second PDU set to one or more selected entities?
Claim 9 is rejected for the similar reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 2-8, and 10-16 depends on claims 1 and 9 respectively, therefore it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 9, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO_2022056665_A1_Zhang in view of US_20210168063_A1_D'Antoni.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a device, comprising: a wireless communications interface; and one or more processors (Zhang figure 3) to: assign a first protocol data unit (PDU) set and a second PDU set to at least one of a quality of service (QOS) flow or a data radio bearer (DRB) (Zhang abstract, “…a first subset of PDUs of a set of PDU s of voice data to a first QoS flow, and a second subset of PDU s of the set of PDU s of the voice data to a second QoS flow, where the first subset of PDU s and the second subset of PDU s may be interleaved within the set of PDUs…”); identify a first metric of the first PDU set and a second metric of the second PDU set (Zhang abstract, the metric of the first subset of PDUs can be being voice data, and the metric of the second subset of PDUs can be being voice data too); determine, based at least on the first metric and the second metric, one or more entities for communication of the first PDU set and the second PDU set to a remote device (Zhang figure 12, relay UEs 1206 and 1218); and cause the wireless communications interface to communicate the first PDU set and the second PDU set from the at least one of the QoS flow or the DRB according to a remote device using the one or more selected entities (Zhang figure 12, second QoS flow 1210, and third QoS flow 1220. Data communicates between the UE-A and UE-B is via the Relay UE 1206 or 1218).
Zhang does not teaches determine, based at least on the first metric and the second metric and a mapping between the first metric, the second metric, and a plurality of one or more entities for communication of the first PDU set and the second PDU set to a remote device, one or more selected entities.
D'Antoni from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: determine, based at least on the first metric and the second metric and a mapping between the first metric, the second metric, and a plurality of one or more entities for communication of the first PDU set and the second PDU set to a remote device, one or more selected entities (D'Antoni paragraph 22, “The routing table may link the multiple next hops with policy numbers associated with particular types of packet data, and the packet processing circuitry may operate to select a next hop from the multiple next hops at least in part according to the type of packet data of the given packet” The type of packet data is corresponding to the claimed “metric”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of D'Antoni into Zhang, since Zhang suggests a technique for transmitting UE forwarding packets to the receiving UE via relay nodes, and D'Antoni suggests the beneficial way of select a next hop from the multiple next hops at least in part according to the type of packet data and the routing table thus ensures specific traffic requirements are met in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang and D'Antoni teach the device of claim 1, wherein the plurality entities comprise at least one of a radio link control (RLC) channel or a logical channel (LCH) (Zhang paragraphs 55, 59).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang and D'Antoni teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang and D'Antoni teach the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang and D'Antoni teach the limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO_2022056665_A1_Zhang in view of US_20210168063_A1_D'Antoni and US_20240196265_A1_Starsinic.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang and D'Antoni teach the device of claim 1, but do not teach wherein the first metric of the first PDU and the second metric of the second PDU are importance values.
Starsinic from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the first metric of the first PDU and the second metric of the second PDU are importance values (Starsinic paragraph 9, “…Determining a priority level may include receiving a message including a header and the PDU, inspecting the header for an PDU Set Importance value and comparing the PDU Set Importance value with the PDU Set Importance to priority mapping rule set”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Starsinic into Zhang and D'Antoni, since Zhang and D'Antoni suggests a technique for transmitting UE forwarding packets to the receiving UE via relay nodes, and Starsinic suggests the beneficial way of handling PDU according to the Importance value thus handle different kind of PDUs properly in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang and D'Antoni teach the device of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the one or more processors are to select the one or more selected entities, based at least on the first metric being greater than the second metric, such that the first PDU set is communicated with a higher priority than the second PDU set.
Starsinic from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the one or more processors are to select the one or more selected entities, based at least on the first metric being greater than the second metric, such that the first PDU set is communicated with a higher priority than the second PDU set (Starsinic paragraphs 81, and 118, higher priority).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Starsinic into Zhang and D'Antoni, since Zhang and D'Antoni suggests a technique for transmitting UE forwarding packets to the receiving UE via relay nodes, and Starsinic suggests the beneficial way of handling PDU according to the Importance value thus handle different kind of PDUs properly in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang and D'Antoni teach the device of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the one or more processors are to: assign the first PDU set and the second PDU set to the same QoS flow, responsive to the first PDU set and the second PDU set having a same value for at least one QoS parameter; but does not disclose and assign the first PDU set and the second PDU set to different entities, responsive to the first metric and the second metric being different.
Starsinic from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the one or more processors are to: assign the first PDU set and the second PDU set to the same QoS flow, responsive to the first PDU set and the second PDU set having a same value for at least one QoS parameter (Starsinic paragraphs 81, “…and PDU Sets that share other QoS requirements, such as Packet Delay Budget, can still be mapped to the same QoS Flow”).; and assign the first PDU set and the second PDU set to different entities, responsive to the first metric and the second metric being different (Starsinic paragraphs 81, “…the RAN Node may determine a different Priority Level for each DL PDU of a QoS Flow…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Starsinic into Zhang and D'Antoni, since Zhang and D'Antoni suggests a technique for transmitting UE forwarding packets to the receiving UE via relay nodes, and Starsinic suggests the beneficial way of handling PDU according to the Importance value thus handle different kind of PDUs properly in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang, D'Antoni and Starsinic disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, D'Antoni and Starsinic disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang, D'Antoni and Starsinic disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang, D'Antoni and Starsinic disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang, D'Antoni and Starsinic disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO_2022056665_A1_Zhang in view of US_20210168063_A1_D'Antoni and US_20250344098_A1_Xu.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang and D'Antoni disclose the device of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein: the plurality of entities comprise at least a first RLC channel to operate in acknowledged mode (AM) and a second RLC channel to operate in unacknowledged (UM) mode; and the one or more processors are to assign the first PDU set to the first RLC channel and the second PDU set to the second RLC channel.
Xu from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein: the plurality of entities comprise at least a first RLC channel to operate in acknowledged mode (AM) and a second RLC channel to operate in unacknowledged (UM) mode (Xu paragraph 76, “…The RLCs 213 and 223 may support three transmission modes: transparent mode (TM); unacknowledged mode (UM); and acknowledged mode (AM)…”); and the one or more processors are to assign the first PDU set to the first RLC channel and the second PDU set to the second RLC channel (Xu paragraphs 287, “…the first RLC channel or the first LCH is associated with the first PDU set may indicate that the first PDU set is mapped to the first RLC channel or the first LCH. The first RLC channel or the first LCH may indicate its importance, an important type, high priority, and/or the like, based on that the first PDU set may be a type A (e.g., I frame) as described above. The first PDU set may be transmitted via the first RLC channel and/or the first LCH for the wireless device. The second RLC channel or the second LCH is associated with the second PDU set may indicate that the second PDU set is mapped to the second RLC channel or the second LCH.…”, also read paragraphs 286, 294-295, 352-354).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Xu’s The RLCs may support three transmission modes: transparent mode (TM); unacknowledged mode (UM); and acknowledged mode (AM) in Zhang and D'Antoni’s system to efficiently handle diverse traffic types in mobile networks by balancing reliability, speed, and overhead. This method for improving the system of Zhang and D'Antoni was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Xu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang, D'Antoni and Xu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang, D'Antoni and Xu disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO_2022056665_A1_Zhang in view of US_20210168063_A1_D'Antoni and US_20250261037_A1_Chun.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang and D'Antoni teach the device of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the one or more processors are to cause communication of the first PDU set according to a prioritized bit rate (PBR) associated with a priority of the one or more selected entities.
Chun from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the one or more processors are to cause communication of the first PDU set according to a prioritized bit rate (PBR) associated with a priority of the one or more selected entities (Chun paragraph 368, “…the NAS message may indicate the QoS ( e.g., PER, PBR, PSER, PSDB) that the NG-RAN currently fulfills for the QoS flow transporting the one or more importance level, and/or for the importance level (the importance level 3, for the PDU set type 3).…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chun’s indicate the QoS ( e.g., PER, PBR, PSER, PSDB) that currently fulfills for the QoS flow in Zhang and D'Antoni’s system to select the proper relay device. This method for improving the system of Zhang and D'Antoni was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chun. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang, D'Antoni and Chun to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang, D'Antoni, and Chun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12, and 18 is/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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights