DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant first office action is in response to communication filed on 10/08/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, 11 and 20 are the base independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2024, 07/22/2024 and 10/08/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 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.
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) 1-2, 9-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry et al (US 2016/0219468) and in view of Liu et al (US 2019/0335364).
Regarding claim 1, 11, 20, Terry’469 discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor(see fig.1, with shows UE with processor, see para.0016); and
at least one memory storing(see para.0015, which discusses the UE to have a memory capable of data buffering for continuous data reception until the missed data can be successfully retransmitted ) (instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor), cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a network device, an indication(see at least fig.2 & see para.0027, which shows and discusses the UE is informed of the MAC layer reset requirement by the RNC as network device, as indicated via a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message as indication (step 16) );
indicate, from a medium access control (MAC) entity of the apparatus to an RLC entity of the one or(due to or alternative language, only one of them is being considered) more RLC entities of the apparatus, (see at least fig.2, which shows MAC layer 22 indicates to RLC 24) information related to RLC data(see para.0033, which discusses the MAC layer forwards PDUs in-sequence from each reordering queue, see para.0035, which discuses MAC layer generates a PDU status request to the RLC… there are numerous ways to coordinate processing between the MAC layer and the RLC to ensure all PDUs are processed by the RLC before generation of the PDU status message), wherein the information related to the RLC data(see para.0031, which discusses all PDUs stored in its reordering buffers to the RLC, see para.0035) is determined based on at least one MAC protocol data unit (PDU) associated with one or(due to or alternative language, only one of them is being considered) more hybrid automatic repeat request, (HARQ) buffers that are flushed or to be flushed(see para.0031, which discusses upon reception of the MAC layer reset request, the MAC layer resets… flushes all PDUs stored in its reordering buffers to the RLC entities mapped to the HS-DSCH (step 22). All flushed PDUs are then processed by the RLC instances mapped to HS-DSCH (step 24) before generation of a PDU status report (step 26), see abs, which discusses the MAC reset indication requires the UE to flush buffers for configured HARQ processes, claim 1, thus determine).
As discussed above, although Terry’469 discloses receive, from a network device, an indication(see at least fig.2 & see para.0027, which shows and discusses the UE is informed of the MAC layer reset requirement by the RNC as network device, as indicated via a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message as indication (step 16) ), Terry’469 does not explicitly show the use of “storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:.. an indication indicating that one or more radio link control (RLC) entities of the apparatus are not reset or reestablished” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:.. an indication indicating that one or more radio link control (RLC) entities of the apparatus are not reset or reestablished” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Liu’364.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Liu’364 teaches the use of least one processor(see para.0314, which discusses a processor); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor(see para.0314, which discusses a memory connected to the processor via a bus interface. The memory is configured to store programs and data used by the processor when performing operations. When the processor calls and executes the programs and data stored in the memory), cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a network device, an indication(see para.0074, which discusses receiving, by the user equipment, an indication message sent by a network side)indicating that one or(due to or alternative language, only one of them is being considered) more radio link control (RLC) entities of the apparatus are not reset or(due to or alternative language, only one of them is being considered) reestablished(see para.0084, which discusses not resetting, by the user equipment, the RLC protocol stack entity in a case that the indication message carries an indication of not resetting the RL).
In view of the above, having the system of Terry’469 and then given the well-established teaching of Liu’364, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Terry’469 to include “storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:.. an indication indicating that one or more radio link control (RLC) entities of the apparatus are not reset or reestablished” as taught by Liu’364, since Liu’364 stated in para.0017+ that such a modification would provide a system where user experience of a handover between nodes is improved and data transmission efficiency of the network is improved.
Regarding claim 2, 12, Terry’469 discloses wherein the information related to the RLC data comprises one or(due to or alternative language, only one of them is being considered) more of: one or more RLC PDUs received from the RLC entity(see para.0035, which discusses the RLC confirms to the MAC layer when PDUs have been processed, and following the processing of all PDUs, the MAC layer generates a PDU status request to the RLC…that there are numerous ways to coordinate processing between the MAC layer and the RLC to ensure all PDUs are processed by the RLC, thus one or more RLC PDUs received from the RLC entity since the RLC confirms to the MAC layer); one or more RLC PDU headers of RLC PDUs received from the RLC entity; or information about the RLC data of a HARQ process the RLC entity provided when the MAC layer entity previously requested the RLC entity to provide data for the HARQ process(see para.0035, which discusses the RLC confirms to the MAC layer when PDUs have been processed, and following the processing of all PDUs, the MAC layer generates a PDU status request to the RLC…that there are numerous ways to coordinate processing between the MAC layer and the RLC to ensure all PDUs are processed by the RLC, thus information about the RLC data of a HARQ process the RLC entity provided when the MAC layer entity previously requested the RLC entity to provide data for the HARQ process since the RLC confirms to the MAC layer after the MAC layer previously generates a PDU status request to the RLC).
Regarding claim 9, 19, Terry’469 discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: determine, based at least on the information related to the RLC data and at the RLC entity, that a poll(see para.0010, which discuses poll) is comprised in at least one of one or more RLC PDUs of the RLC data(see para.0010, which discusses e sending RLC entity to poll for a status report PDU from the receiving RLC entity. The polling function provides a mechanism for the sending RLC entity to request the status of PDU transmissions); and include, based on the determining and at the RLC entity, a poll in an RLC PDU to be transmitted(see para.0010, which discusses e sending RLC entity to poll for a status report PDU from the receiving RLC entity. The polling function provides a mechanism for the sending RLC entity to request the status of PDU transmissions).
Regarding claim 10, Terry’469 discloses wherein the RLC entity comprises at least one of an RLC acknowledged mode entity or an RLC unacknowledged mode entity(see para.0030, which discusses An RLC instance is called Acknowledged Mode (AM) if ARQ is used to ensure correct transmission between the peer RLC instances).
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry et al (US 2016/0219468) and in view of Liu et al (US 2019/0335364) and further and in view of Uchino et al (US 20240163718 ).
Regarding claim 3, 13, as discussed above, although the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 discloses recover a PDCP service data unit (SDU) segment(Liu’364 ,see para.0058), the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 does not explicitly show the use of “transmit or retransmit, based at least on the information related to the RLC data, one or more radio link control service data units (SDUs), or RLC SDU segments associated with the RLC data” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “transmit or retransmit, based at least on the information related to the RLC data, one or more radio link control service data units (SDUs), or RLC SDU segments associated with the RLC data” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Uchino’718.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Uchino’359 teaches the use of transmit or retransmit, based at least on the information related to the RLC data, one or more radio link control service data units (SDUs), or (due to or language, only one of them is being considered) RLC SDU segments associated with the RLC data(see fig.11, which shows he RLC transmitter 1102 may transmit the RLC SDU(s) for the RLC receiver 1104 based on RLC segmentation information 1114, & see para.0136, see fig.18, 1804).
In view of the above, having the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 and then given the well-established teaching of Uchino’359, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 to include “transmit or retransmit, based at least on the information related to the RLC data, one or more radio link control service data units (SDUs), or RLC SDU segments associated with the RLC data” as taught by Uchino’359, since Uchino’359 stated in para.0003+ that such a modification would provide need for further improvements in 5G NR technology.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry et al (US 2016/0219468) and in view of Liu et al (US 2019/0335364) and further and in view of Suzuki et al (EP 1,919,114 ).
Regarding claim 4, 14, as discussed above, although the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 discloses recover a PDCP service data unit (SDU) segment(Liu’364 ,see para.0058), the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 does not explicitly show the use of “determine, based on at least on the information related to the RLC data, whether to retransmit one or more RLC SDUs or RLC SDU segments associated with the RLC data” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “determine, based on at least on the information related to the RLC data, whether to retransmit one or more RLC SDUs or RLC SDU segments associated with the RLC data” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Suzuki’114.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki’114 teaches the use of determine, based on at least on the information related to the RLC data, whether to retransmit one or more RLC SDUs or RLC SDU segments associated with the RLC data(para.0006, which discusses the RLC can be notified of the HARQ retransmission failure and the RLC service data unit (RLC-SDU) or part of the RLC-SDU (the RLC-PDUs) can be retransmitted on the notification, see abs, A method for packet data retransmission on Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) Transmission failure having the steps of: checking whether changes to HARQ transmission error performance characteristics are greater than a threshold and/or a deterioration of channel conditions is indicated or less than threshold; if yes, re-segmenting an RLC-SDU smaller PDU data sizes; and transmitting said re-segmented RLC-PDU data, see fig.7-8).
In view of the above, having the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 and then given the well-established teaching of Suzuki’114, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 to include determine, based on at least on the information related to the RLC data, whether to retransmit one or more RLC SDUs or RLC SDU segments associated with the RLC data” as taught by Suzuki’114, since Suzuki’114 stated in para.0007+ that such a modification would provide improvement of retransmission latency further by re-segmenting data into more appropriate sizes according to radio channel conditions such as shadowing, among others.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry et al (US 2016/0219468) and in view of Liu et al (US 2019/0335364) and further and in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0266980).
Regarding claim 5, 15, as discussed above, although the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 discloses recover a PDCP service data unit (SDU) segment(Liu’364 ,see para.0058), the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 does not explicitly show the use of “skip, based at least on the information related to RLC data and at the RLC entity, incrementing a retransmission counter associated with one or more RLC SDU associated with the RLC data” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “skip, based at least on the information related to RLC data and at the RLC entity, incrementing a retransmission counter associated with one or more RLC SDU associated with the RLC data” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Kim’980.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Kim’980 teaches the use of d skip, based at least on the information related to RLC data and at the RLC entity, incrementing a retransmission counter associated with one or more RLC SDU associated with the RLC data(see para.0225, which discusses the upper entity does not consider retransmission of the data (the RLC SDU) or the segmented data (the RLC SDU segment), a retransmission count is not increased for any data, thus skip since a retransmission count as retransmission counter is not increased/incremented for any data).
In view of the above, having the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 and then given the well-established teaching of Kim’980, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Terry’469 and Liu’364 to include “skip, based at least on the information related to RLC data and at the RLC entity, incrementing a retransmission counter associated with one or more RLC SDU associated with the RLC data” as taught by Kim’980, since Kim’980 stated in para.0007+ that such a modification would effectively provide a service in a mobile communication system.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINNCELAS LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5138. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/VINNCELAS LOUIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474