DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to Applicants amendment filed 06/02/2026 which has been entered. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 2, 9 and 16 have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JIANG et al (2019/0215901 A1).
As per Claim 1, Jiang teaches a method performed by a converged layer 2 (L2) of an electronic device in a wireless communication system (Figure 2 – References 210 and 220; Page 1, Paragraph [0007]; Page 2, Paragraphs [0030] – [0032], [0034] and [0035]). (Note: In paragraph [0030], Jiang describes implementing a concatenation function at a medium access control [MAC] lower layer)
(Note: In paragraph [0030], Jiang describes a packet data convergence protocol [PDCP] protocol data unit [PDU] transmitted from the PDCP layer being joined with a radio link control [RLC] PDU. The definition of concatenation means joining things end-to-end in a chain. The concatenation function described by Jiang involves joining the PDCP PDU and the RLC PDU to produce a converged L2 encapsulation)
Jiang also teaches receiving a plurality of internet protocol (IP) packets from an IP layer; assigning a single sequence number to the received plurality of IP packets; adding at least one L2 header to the received plurality of IP packets to process a protocol data unit (PDU) (Figures 3A and 3B – References 301 and 302; Page 3, Paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0043], [0044] and [0048]).
(Note: In paragraph [0031], Jiang describes a sequence number [SN] corresponding to an RLC PDU being allocated by the RLC layer. Jiang also indicates that data [i.e. a plurality of internet protocol (IP) packets from an IP layer] formed in a specific format is called a PDU. In paragraphs [0040] and [0041], Jiang describes a plurality of RLC PDUs being received from an RLC layer and the MAC layer. The L2 header consists of an RLC PUD and a sequence number which is taught by Jiang)
Jiang further teaches transmitting the processed PDU to at least one medium access control (MAC) lower layer, 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 (Figures 3A and 3B – References 301 and 302; Page 4, Paragraphs [0057] and [0058]).
(Note: In paragraph [0032], Jiang describes encapsulating the sequence number corresponding to the RLC PDU in the header of the MAC PDU to avoid the mixture of the SN and the data. In paragraph [0057], Jiang describes indication information being used as a header for a MAC PDU and RLC PDUs being used as the body of the MAC PDU wherein the header and the body are encapsulated into a MAC PDU)
(Note: In paragraph [0057], Jiang describes the indication information as including a logical channel identifier [LCID], a sequence number [SN] and a length. In paragraph [0058], Jiang describes the MAC layer concatenating RLC PDUs to form one MAC PDU. The sequence number is encapsulated in the header of the MAC PDU which facilitates improving the efficiency of parsing and obtaining the sequence number corresponding to each RLC PDU after the communication peer receives the MAC PDU)
As per Claims 4, 11 and 18, Jiang 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 8 and 15, Jiang teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Jiang also teaches an electronic device comprising: memory (Figure 8 – Reference 803; Figure 8 – Reference 904; Page 8, Paragraph [0131]; Page 9, Paragraph [0137] and [0139]); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (Figures 8 and 9 – References 802 and 903; Page 8, Paragraph [0130]; Page 9, Paragraph [0134] and [0138]), 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 9, Paragraph [0140] and [0141]).
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) 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al (2019/0215901 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 plurality of IP packets; buffering the validated plurality of IP packets; and discarding the buffered plurality of IP packets, if buffered beyond a discard timer. However, Kanamarlapudi teaches validating the received plurality of IP packets; buffering the validated plurality of IP packets; and discarding the buffered plurality of IP packets, if buffered beyond a discard timer (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 Jiang 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 Jiang 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) 5-7, 12-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al (2019/0215901 A1) in view of Ho et al (2010/0157904 A1).
As per Claim 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20, Jiang teaches the method, device and non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 1, 8 and 15; but does not teach assigning an L2 sub-header to the plurality of IP packets, based on detecting that more than one IP packet are present in a 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 the 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.
However, Ho teaches assigning an L2 sub-header to the plurality of IP packets, based on detecting that more than one IP packet are present in a 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 the 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, device and non-transitory computer-readable storage media taught by Jiang with the method taught by Ho to facilitate improving the efficiency of parsing and obtaining the sequence number corresponding to each RLC PDU after the communication peer receives the MAC PDU.
As per Claims 7 and 14, the combination of Jiang and Ho teaches wherein the transmitting of the processed 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 plurality of IP packets; performing integrity protection and ciphering on the plurality of IP packets having the updated TX window; and forwarding the processed PDU to at least one MAC lower layer (Ho: See Figures 8 and 9; Page 5, Paragraphs [0062] and [0063])
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 Jiang with the method taught by Ho to facilitate improving the efficiency of parsing and obtaining the sequence number corresponding to each RLC PDU after the communication peer receives the MAC PDU.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LE BARS et al (2023/0188257 A1), XU et al (2020/0068581 A1), ZHU et al (2020/0336258 A1), Shah et al (2019/0045421 A1), Zhang et al (2020/0305225 A1), Voigt et al (2015/0264706 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights