DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 04/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over XU et al. (US 2023/0180027) in view of FAN et al. (WO 2021/026939).
Regarding claim 1, XU discloses a information indication method [See Fig. 1, ¶[¶ 45-90; a user plane data processing method is performed by a base station], comprising:
receiving, by a user plane (UP) in a central unit (CU), first information from a control plane (CP) [See Fig. 1, ¶ 74; receiving, by a user plane (UP) in a central unit (CU), second user plane configuration information/(first information from a control plane (CP)); also see Fig. 3, ¶ 110; step 307, receiving the bearer context setup request message],
wherein the first information indicates a maximum number of Ethernet header compression (EHC) contexts establishable for a first data radio bearer (DRB) of user equipment (UE) in a downlink direction [See ¶¶ 77, 81; wherein the second user plane configuration information comprises EHC configuration information: the max CID/ (maximum number of supported Context IDs), the Continue EHC and the Padding Removal valid for both uplink and downlink are included in the uplink and downlink directions, respectively]; and
establishing, by the UP, one or more EHC contexts for the first DRB in the downlink direction based on the first information [See ¶¶ 84-85, the CU-UP processes the PDCP data corresponding to the bear of the user equipment according to the second user plane configuration information],
Wherein the UP, the CP and the CU are configured by one or more processor [See Fig. 1, 2, ¶¶ 25, 91-95; wherein the UP, the CP and the CU are configured by one or more processor].
Although, XU discloses all aspects of claim invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first DRB is a DRB maintained by the UP.
However, FAN discloses
wherein the first information indicates a maximum number of Ethernet header compression (EHC) contexts establishable for a first data radio bearer (DRB) of user equipment (UE) in a downlink direction [See page 30 lines 30-33; wherein the capability information includes the maximum value MAX_CID of the corresponding relationship entry supported by each DRB that supports EHC, the decompression terminal/UP supports the ability to dynamically configure profile parameters] wherein the first DRB is a DRB maintained by the UP [page 30 lines 33-34; the decompression terminal/UP supports the correspondence maintained by the DRB of EHC];
wherein the UP, the CP and the CU are configured by one or more processor [See ¶¶ 21-22; wherein the network device may be a CU node, or a DU node, or a RAN device including a CU node and a DU node].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the first DRB is a DRB maintained by the UP” as taught by FAN in the system of XU, so that it would to reduce the overhead of Ethernet frame transmission in wireless networks [see FAN; page 2 lines 11-12)].
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of XU and FAN discloses the method according to claim 1.
XU further discloses wherein the first information is carried in a bearer context setup request message, a bearer context modification request message, or a bearer context modification confirm message [see ¶ 85; the second bearer information is a Bearer Context Setup Request or a Bearer Context Modification Request].
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the claims recite an information indication method to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claims 1 and 4 respectively; therefore, claims 6 and 9 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 1 and 4 respectively.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, the claims recite an information indication apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to instruct the at least one processor [see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 91-96; FIG. 2, a base station includes a memory 21 and a processor 22] to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claims 1 and 4 respectively; therefore, claims 11 and 14 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 1 and 4 respectively.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the claims recite an information indication apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to instruct the at least one processor [see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 91-96; FIG. 2, a base station includes a memory 21 and a processor 22] to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claims 1 and 4 respectively; therefore, claims 16 and 19 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 1 and 4 respectively.
Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over XU et al. (US 2023/0180027) in view of FAN et al. (WO 2021/026939), and further in view of TAKAHASHI et al. (WO 2021/124571).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of XU and FAN discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of EHC contexts established by the UP for the first DRB in the downlink direction is not greater than the maximum number indicated by the first information.
However, TAKAHASHI discloses wherein a number of EHC contexts established by the UP for the first DRB in the downlink direction is not greater than the maximum number indicated by the first information [page 9 lines 1-4; the eNB100A (MN) and gNB100B (SN) can set an appropriate number of EHC sessions within the range that does not exceed the capacity of the UE200 (which maxNumberEHCcontextSessionsSN)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein a number of EHC contexts established by the UP for the first DRB in the downlink direction is not greater than the maximum number indicated by the first information” as taught by TAKAHASHI in the combined system of XU and FAN, so that it would to provide enough memory resources to host at least the MAX_CID + 1 context [see TAKAHASHI; page 4 line 26)].
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the method according to claim 6 to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claim 2; therefore, claim 7 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the information indication apparatus according to claim 11 to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claim 2; therefore, claim 12 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the information indication apparatus according to claim 16 to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claim 2; therefore, claim 17 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 2.
Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over XU et al. (US 2023/0180027) in view of FAN et al. (WO 2021/026939), in view of HORI et al. (WO 2021/029369).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of XU and FAN discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first information is carried in an EHC parameters information element, IE.
However, HORI discloses wherein the first information is carried in an EHC parameters information element, IE [See Fig. 9, page 15 lines 6-18; Parameters such as fields and information elements described in 1 may be referred to as information].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the first information is carried in an EHC parameters information element, IE” as taught by HORI in the combined system of XU and FAN, so that it would to provide parameter of the message regarding the resetting of the RRC connection [see HORI; page 11 lines 43-44)].
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the method according to claim 6 to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claim 3; therefore, claim 8 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the information indication apparatus according to claim 11 to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claim 3; therefore, claim 13 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the information indication apparatus according to claim 16 to perform the functions of the information indication method recited as in claim 3; therefore, claim 18 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 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
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, Qiao et al. (US 2019/0116521) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 1, 11, and 20 [Fig. 15, ¶¶ 185-186, 216].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469