DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the RCE filed on March 6th 2026.
The interview summary mailed on 8/5/26 was sent in error. Please disregard. Applicant is not required to respond to the interview summary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts, pg. 12-14, the combination of Kim and Poli does not disclose amended claim 1. Applicant discusses the claims and art and concludes that while Kim reduces RST packets, it does so because downlink traffic is filtered at the base station and therefore does not disclose the UE transmitting at least one RST packet and discarding the remaining RST packets. This is not persuasive. Kim clearly discloses a UE transmitting at least one RST packet (abstract, paragraphs 9, 19) and the UE bypassing transmission of messages associated with downlink packets that are associated with content that is ultimately discarded (paragraph 20). This is equivalent to discarding remaining RST packets as now recited by the claim. See the detailed rejection for further details. Note, since the feature of filtering “at a modem” has been removed by the amendment, Poli is no longer relied upon for the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant makes similar remarks for claims 9 and 13, these are also not persuasive for similar reasons. See the updated detailed rejection below for more information.
Applicant also argues claim 2 (pg. 15-16), the updated rejection explains how Kim teaches that a closed TCP connected includes a TCP connection for which a RST message has already been transmitted (this is essentially the definition of a sending an RST packet). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the alternative rejection in view of Sathy, applicant makes similar remarks (pg. 16-21). In view of the amendment, this rejection is withdrawn. Therefore, these arguments are moot.
Applicant suggests the new claims are allowable (pg. 21), the detailed rejection below explains how the claims are rejected or allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “the plurality of an RST message”, there is not antecedent basis for this, previous claims introduce “RST packets” not message, claim 24 uses the term “an” RST message. 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) 1-2, 4-9, 13-14, 16-21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2014/0226561 A1 (cited in IDS filed on 7/20/24).
Regarding claim 1 Kim discloses: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Fig. 1), comprising:
one or more antennas (user equipment has antenna – Fig. 1; also see paragraph 24 which explicitly teaches electronic devices have “one or more antennas” for communicating);
a processing system, coupled with the one or more antennas, that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code for the processor circuitry, the processing system configured to cause the UE to (user equipment is a computer device such as a smart phone, tablet, laptop, etc. these devices have memory and processor and are coupled to antenna – see Fig. 1, paragraph 25):
track a closed transmission control protocol (TCP) connection (TCP session – paragraph 20, Figs. 2-3; use port number to identify sessions/connections – paragraphs 19-20; port number identifies “terminated” TCP sessions which is equivalent to “closed” – see paragraph 28 which explicitly teaches a “reset tracker”);
receive a plurality of downlink packets associated with the closed TCP connection (transmit downlink content that is discarded because it is associated with a terminated session – see paragraphs 6, 19 and 31);
generate a set of reset (RST) packets for the plurality of downlink packets (UE generates one or more reset messages – paragraph 34, Fig. 4, so there is a “set of” of RST packets);
transmit at least one RST packet of the plurality of RST packets (UE sends reset message – paragraph 28, Fig. 4; also see paragraph 43 which teaches sending TCP RST messages for download content received from a closed or terminated TCP connection); and
discard a subset of RST packets of the plurality of RST packets, wherein the subset of RST packets includes remaining RST packets after transmission of the at least one RST packet (Kim explicitly discloses reducing TCP RST packets that would have been sent by the mobile station – paragraph 42; Kim also teaches the UE can bypass transmission of messages, e.g. RST packets, associated with downlink content that is to be discarded, specifically response packets to the provider – see paragraph 20; this is equivalent to discarding a subset of RST packets as recited by the claim; also see paragraphs 27-28, 31, 38-39 and Figs. 3-5 which generally disclose discarding/bypassing packets associated with a terminated or closed TCP connection).
Although the above claim is directed to a “system”, it is recited as a series of method steps (e.g. track, receive, transmit, discard, etc.). While Kim does explicitly disclose all of these steps as explained above, Kim may teach some of the steps being carried out by the base station as opposed to the “UE”, although it is noted that Kim expressly suggests the UE can perform discarding/filtering of uplink and downlink packets matching a closed TCP connection (see paragraphs 20 and 34).
In that regard, Kim does not explicitly disclose causing a UE to: [perform all of the steps]. But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to perform the steps at the UE as suggested by Kim. As discussed above, Kim teaches that bypassing transmission of unnecessary packets saves resources (see paragraph 39) and eliminates wasteful content delivery which may result in saving 10% bandwidth or more (see paragraph 41; also, it is well-known in the art that sending redundant data may be wasteful of resources). And, Kim explicitly teaches that the UE can perform the discarding/filtering (paragraphs 20, 34). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of discarding duplicate RST packets at a UE, as taught or suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the closed TCP connection includes a connection that was closed within a threshold time period or for which an RST packet has already been transmitted (transmitting an RST for a TCP connection is a signal that the TCP connection is now closed – paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses select, the at least one RST packet to transmit to the network node; and discard, the remaining RST packets (discard wasteful uplink traffic by reducing or eliminating TCP RST packets – paragraph 42, while transmitting a single rest message – paragraph 38, Fig. 5).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a “time period” or “the time period expiring” but it teaches using TCP (paragraph 20). TCP inherently has time periods such as wait and timeout. Thus, by using TCP, Kim teaches or suggests transmitting within a time period and a time period expiring as recited by the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses reduce a quantity of RST packets that are queued for uplink transmission for the closed TCP connection based at least in part on queueing the set of RST packets associated with the TCP connection (reduce TCP RST packets that “would have been sent” – paragraph 42; the phrase “would have been sent” teaches or suggests the packets are queued for transmission, Kim explicitly discloses the use of a transmission buffer for transmitting TCP packets – see paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses discard each downlink packet of the plurality of downlink packets associated with the TCP connection (bypass/discard downlink packets associated with closed TCP connection – paragraphs 8, 20, 27, 31; this may be performed by the UE – paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses receive, from a quantity of the plurality of downlink packets associated with the closed TCP connection, one downlink packet, and discard a subset of downlink packets from the quantity of the plurality of downlink packets associated with the closed TCP connection, wherein the subset of downlink packets includes remaining downlink packets after receive the one downlink packet (Kim teaches discarding downlink packets associated with the TCP connection as discussed above, see rejection of claims 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses receive … one downlink packet of the plurality of downlink packets associated with the closed TCP connection; and discard a subset of downlink packets associated with the closed TCP connection, wherein the subset of downlink packets includes remaining downlink packets after receiving the one downlink packet (at least one packet, from a plurality of downlink packets is forwarded even though the packet is associated with a closed connection – see Fig. 5; discard remaining downlink packets – paragraphs 28, 31 and 38).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a “time period” or “the time period expiring” but it teaches using TCP (paragraph 20). TCP inherently has time periods such as wait and timeout. Thus, by using TCP, Kim teaches or suggests forwarding a packet within a time period and discarding packets based on the time period expiring as recited by the claim.
Regarding claim 9, it is directed to a network node but corresponds to the system of claim 1. The corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. Kim discloses a network node such as a base station performing the steps of claim 1 as discussed above. Also see Figs. 3-5 and paragraphs 19-20, 24, 27-29 and 41-42 which explicitly disclose the claimed features of tracking closed TCP connections, receiving a plurality of downlink packets associated with the closed TCP connection, transmitting at least one downlink packet and discarding a subset of downlink packets for the purpose of saving resources. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the similar reasons. Furthermore, as indicated in dependent claims 4 and 8, Kim does not explicitly disclose a time period or the time period expiring but this would have been inherent because TCP includes timers/timeout values. Thus, Kim teaches or suggests these features by disclosing using TCP.
Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1; thus it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-20, they are method claims that correspond to the previously presented dependent claims 2 and 4-8 respectively. Thus, they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Kim does not explicitly disclose that packets are received by a modem but this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is extremely well-known in the art to use a modem to receive and send electronic data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network node of Kim to receive packets using a modem. This is merely the combination of a well-known element according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result (i.e. send and receive data).
Regarding claims 24-25, Kim discloses store information that identifies the closed TCP connection associated with an RST message (reset tracker – paragraph 28, Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: although the act of flushing or pruning a queue is very well-known in the art (see pertinent art), the combination of features recited by claims 22-23 when considered as a whole distinguishes over the art. With respect to intervening claim 5, the entirety of the claim need not be incorporated to maintain the allowable subject matter since claim 22 itself recites the RST packets being queued for uplink and reducing the quantity of RST packets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chirashnya et al. US 6,560,720 B1 discloses a computer network system (abstract) including sending a command that will discard all packets in the queue (col. 9 ln. 10-12).
Dalal et al. US 2006/0159011 A1 discloses transmitting only a single TCP RST segment is needed (paragraph 58).
Poli et al. US 2005/0122976 A1 discloses using a modem to filter packets (paragraph 46).
Li et al. US 2010/0281168 A1 discloses that it is known in the art to filter RST packets that correspond to a closed connection (paragraph 4, Fig. 6).
Vissamsetty et al. US 2020/0374087 A1 discloses dropping TCP RST packets while routing a single copy of the TCP RST packet to the destination address (paragraph 36) and dropping TCP RST packets that not match an entry in the flow cache (paragraph 38).
Soni et al. US 2007/0110053 A1 discloses it is well-known in the art for a mobile device (e.g. user equipment) to include a wireless modem and circuitry operable to drop packets (paragraph 19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights