DETAILED ACTION
This Communication is a First Action on the Merits (FAOM). Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ho et al (2010/0157904 A1).
As per Claim 1, Ho teaches a method performed by a converged layer 2 (L2) for processing at least one internet protocol (IP) packet in a wireless communication system (Figure 5; Page 3, Paragraphs [0040] and [0043]; Page 4, Paragraph [0053]), the method comprising: receiving, by the converged L2, at least one IP packet as a service data unit (SDU) from an IP layer (Page 4, Paragraph [0053]). 2021/0258409
(Note: In paragraphs [0040 and [0043], Ho describes a wireless communication network that includes an evolved NodeB in LTE applications that facilitates communications between mobile apparatuses. Ho also describes the use among other things of CDMA and GSM wireless communication systems. In paragraph [0053], Ho describes data packets being processed through the L2 layer)
(Note: In paragraph [0053], Ho indicates processing includes the generation of MAC protocol data units [PDUs] from IP packets on the transmit side and the recovery of MAC PDUs on the reception end. Ho describes the layer receiving service data units [SDUs] from an upper layer and processing the SDUs to produce PDUs for delivery to a lower layer for the transmission side; and the process is reversed for the receiving side)
Ho also teaches assigning, by the converged L2, a sequence number to the received at least one IP packet (Figures 6 and 7; Page 5, Paragraphs [0059] and [0060]); adding, by the converged L2, at least one L2 header to the received at least one IP packet to process a protocol data unit (PDU) (Page 4, Paragraphs [0054] and [0055]); and transmitting, by the converged L2, the processed at least one PDU to at least one medium access control (MAC) lower layer (Page 4, Paragraph [0055] – Page , Paragraph [0057]).
(Note: In paragraph [0059], Ho describes an illustration of a packet data convergence protocol [PDCP] PDU as including a PDCP header and a PDCP payload. Ho indicates that the PDCP header includes a serial number [i.e. sequence number]. The process of transmitting at least one processed PDU to at least one medium access control (MAC) lower layer is described in paragraphs [0053] – [0057]. In paragraph [0058], Ho indicates when the apparatus is in receive mode the process of paragraphs [0053] – [0057] occurs in reverse order)
As per Claims 2, 9 and 16, Ho teaches wherein the converged L2 is designed by converging functionalities from a radio link control (RLC) protocol and a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) in a converged L2 protocol as described in Claim 1.
As per Claims 4, 11 and 18, Ho teaches wherein the assigning of the sequence number to the received at least one IP packet comprises performing SDU chaining, if concatenation is configured. (Note: In a circumstance where concatenation is not configured SDU chaining is not performed)
As per Claims 7 and 14, Ho teaches wherein the transmitting of the processed at least one PDU to at least one MAC lower layer comprises: updating a transmitter (TX) window of the added at least one L2 header to the received at least one IP packet; performing integrity protection and ciphering on the at least one IP packet having the updated TX window; and forwarding the processed at least one PDU to at least one MAC lower layer as described in Claim 1 (See Figures 8 and 9; Page 5, Paragraphs [0062] and [0063]).
As per Claims 8 and 15, Ho teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Ho also teaches an electronic device comprising: memory (Page 2, Paragraph [0036]); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (Figure 1 – Reference 104; Page 2, Paragraph [0036] – Page 3, Paragraph [0038]), wherein the memory store one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions and non-transitory computer-readable storage media (Figure 1 – Reference 106; Page 2, Paragraph [0036] – Page 3, Paragraph [0038]).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al (2010/0157904 A1) in view of KANAMARLAPUDI et al (2021/0258409 A1).
As per Claim 3, 10 and 17, Ho teaches the method, device and non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 1, 8 and 15; but does not teach validating the received at least one IP packet; buffering the validated at least one IP packet; and discarding the buffered at least one IP packet, if buffered beyond a discard timer. However, Kanamarlapudi teaches validating the received at least one IP packet; buffering the validated at least one IP packet (Page 3, Paragraphs [0033], [0035] and [0036]; Page 8, Paragraph [0078]).
(Note: In paragraph [0033], Kanamarlapudi describes a timer used to track the amount of duration at which a number of packets or an amount of data is held. In paragraph [0035], Kanamarlapudi describes holding packets for a predetermined period of time and indicates upon the expiration of the timer the packets exit the buffer)
(Note: In paragraph [0036], Kanamarlapudi describes the pros and cons of the timer values [e.g. long-time value = less packet loss but more latency/memory consumption vs short time value = greater packet loss but less latency/memory consumption. In paragraph [0078], Kanamarlapudi indicates that the PDCP sublayer provides functions including packet sequence delivery, duplicate packet detection and packet validation among other functions)
The combination of Ho and Kanamarlapudi teaches discarding the buffered at least one IP packet, if buffered beyond a discard timer. (Note: As described above, upon expiration of the timer [i.e. discard timer] the data packets stored within the buffer are moved. In a circumstance where memory consumption is a limiting factor in order to free up additional memory it would be obvious to discard any packet that has been buffered for a duration in excess of the discard timer to ensure that packet latency remains within an acceptable limit thereby maintaining quality of service [QoS] requirements)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Ho with the method taught by Kanamarlapudi to free up additional memory by discarding any and all packets that have been buffered for a duration in excess of a discard timer to ensure that packet latency remains within an acceptable range thereby maintaining an agreed upon quality of service [QoS] requirement for multimedia transmission.
As per Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20, the combination of Ho and Kanamarlapudi teaches detecting a plurality of IP packets present in a cluster; and assigning a L2 sub-header to the plurality of IP packets, on detecting that more than one IP packet are present in the cluster; wherein the L2 sub-header comprises: an extension (E) field; a length field, wherein the length field indicates a length of a corresponding IP packet; and an indication of whether a plurality of IP packets are present in the cluster, wherein the indication that the plurality of IP packets are present in the cluster indicates a presence of a next L2 sub-header and the corresponding IP packet (Figures 5, 6 and 7; Page 4, Paragraph [0053] – Page 5, Paragraphs [0057], [0059] and [0060]).
(Note: In paragraphs [0053] – [0058], Ho describes a process by which data packets are processed through the L2 layer resulting in the production of a plurality of PDCP PDUs which are the product of the plurality of IP packets present in the recited cluster. Figures 6 and 7 are an illustration of fields present in an L2 header and sub-header which include the recited elements of the Claim)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Ho with the method taught by Kanamarlapudi to free up additional memory by discarding any and all packets that have been buffered for a duration in excess of a discard timer to ensure that packet latency remains within an acceptable range thereby maintaining an agreed upon quality of service [QoS] requirement for multimedia transmission.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al (2010/0157904 A1) in view of Maheshwari et al (2018/0077605 A1).
As per Claims 4, 11 and 18, Ho teaches the method, device and non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claims 1, 8 and 15; but does not teach performing SDU chaining, if concatenation is configured. However, Maheshwari teaches performing SDU chaining, if concatenation is configured (Page 6, Paragraph [0058]).
(Note: The language of the claim indicates that in a circumstance where if concatenation is configured then SDU chaining does not occur. The claim could be interpreted to be an embodiment where concatenation is not configured which would not require the performance of SDU chaining)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, device and non-transitory computer-readable storage media taught by Ho with the method, device and non-transitory computer-readable storage media taught by Maheshwari to improve transmission efficiency by concatenating multiple packets into one the overhead from headers and trailers [e.g. preamble, MAC addresses, etc.] is shared across more data which increases the ratio of payload to control information which improves bandwidth utilization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al (2020/0305225 A1), Voigt et al (2015/0264706 A1), Loehr et al (2018/0352556 A1), Zheng et al (2020/0213242 A1), Pani et al (2009/0086659 A1), JUNG et al (2018/0213592 A1), LI et al (2023/0164246 A1) and Singhal et al (2023/0217341 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods of implementing packet-based communications using the OSI model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693