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 .
Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 21-22 have been examined and claims 8-10 and 18-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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, and overcoming the 35 USC § 112 rejection.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 2/10/26 have been moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 11-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood:
As per claim 1, lines 13-15, it is unclear how the recited “wherein…time sensitive communication assistance information…” is related to the indicating step of line 13 (i.e., is the time sensitive communication assistance information indicated to the access network device?).
As per claim 11, lines 15-17, it is unclear how the recited “wherein…time sensitive communication assistance information…” is related to the indicating step of line 15 (i.e., is the time sensitive communication assistance information indicated to the access network device?).
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 11, 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0219458 (hereinafter Kubota) in view of Wich et al, EP 3 855 804 (hereinafter Wich).
As per claim 1, Kubota teaches the invention substantially as claimed comprising:
obtaining a transmission mode of a first service, wherein the transmission mode of the first service ([57][59]-[61][71][75][99][101][110], e.g., obtaining/determining a transmission mode (e.g., AM/recovery, UM/no recovery) of a service) is either:
an acknowledged mode ([57][59]-[61][71][75][99][101][110], e.g., obtaining/determining a transmission mode (e.g., AM/recovery, UM/no recovery) of a service), wherein a transmit end sends a data packet and a receiving end sends feedback information corresponding to the data packet ([58][59], e.g., For AM, the receiver RLC entity sends a status report to the peer RLC entity so that the transmitter RLC entity can figure out which AMD need to be retransmitted), or
an unacknowledged mode ([57][59]-[61][71][75][99][101][110], e.g., obtaining/determining a transmission mode (e.g., AM/recovery, UM/no recovery) of a service), wherein the transmit end sends the data packet and the receiving end does not send the feedback information corresponding to the data packet (([58][59], e.g., the UM does not offer any data reception acknowledgement and retransmission);
determining, prior to expiration of a survival time timer ([101], e.g., prior to the expiration of the t-Reordering timer), based upon the transmission mode, whether reliability of unidirectional transmission needs to be improved (e.g., based upon the AM/UM mode, that status reporting of UM transmission (i.e., unidirectional transmission because UM does not transmit Ack) is needed to improve the reliability) or reliability of bidirectional transmission needs to be improved (e.g., status reporting of AM transmission (i.e., bidirectional transmission because AM does transmit Ack) is needed to improve the reliability), wherein, when the transmission mode is the acknowledged mode, the reliability of bidirectional transmission needs to be improved (e.g., when in AM mode, the status reporting of the AM transmission is needed ( [78][80][89][101]); and
indicating a transmission mode of a first packet flow to an access network device, wherein the first packet flow belongs to the first service ([45][46][62][68][71][75][82][83][78][99][101][110], e.g., first acknowledged signal indicating a transmission mode of a first packet flow to UE or eNodeB, wherein the first packet flow belongs to the service).
Although Kubota teaches indicating a transmission mode of a first packet flow to an access network device, wherein the first packet flow belongs to the first service, however Kubota is silent in regards to first QoS flow. Wich teaches first packet flow as first QoS flow (pg. 3, [14]; pg. 4, [22]), and time sensitive communication assistance information (TSCAI) includes a flow direction of the first QoS flow (pg. 4, [17]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wich’s teaching with Kubota’s system in order to provide parameters that describe periodic, deterministic traffic, thus optimizing scheduling in Kubota’s system (pg. 4, [17][19]).
As per claim 5, Kubota and Wich teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Kubota further teach wherein the indicating the transmission mode of the first QoS flow to the access network device further specifically comprises: sending second indication information to the access network device, wherein when the second indication information indicates that the transmission mode of the first QoS flow is the unacknowledged mode, the second indication information is a third value; or when the second indication information indicates that the transmission mode of the first QoS flow is the acknowledged mode, the second indication information is a fourth value ([84], e.g., when the RLC bit indicates that the mode is AM, the RLC bit is a particular value; [71], e.g., when the signal/message indicates that the packet flow is the AM, the signal/message is an ACK message).
As per claim 6, Kubota and Wich teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Kubota further teach wherein the indicating the transmission mode of the first QoS flow to the access network device further specifically comprises: when the transmission mode of the first QoS flow is the unacknowledged mode, sending second indication information to the access network device; or when the transmission mode of the first QoS flow is the acknowledged mode, sending the second indication information to the access network device ([63], e.g., when the transmission mode of the first packet flow is the AM, sending second acknowledgement signal to UE/eNodeB).
As per claim 11, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. See [102][103] for a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the method of claim 1.
As per claim 15, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
As per claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
As per claim 21, Kubota and Wich teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wich further teach wherein the TSCAI further comprises a periodicity indicating a time interval between two bursts of the first service and a burst arrival time that is a latest possible moment of arrival of the data packet (pg. 4, [17]).
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota and Wich in view of Lee et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0029639 (hereinafter Lee).
As per claim 2, Kubota and Wich teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Kubota teaches sending a request message to a RLC entity ([62], e.g., the RKC entity can be different RLC entity), wherein the request message is used to request the transmission mode of the first service ([62][71], e.g., the request message is used to cause the receiver to transmit an ACK signal indicating the AM of the service), however Kubota and Wich are silent in regards to RKC entity as a second core network device. Lee teaches a core network (i.e., inherently comprised core network device) as a RLC entity [13]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lee’s teaching into Kubota’s and Wich’s system in order to allow different types of RLC entities to implement switching of AM and UM modes to increase throughput.
As per claim 3, Kubota, Wich and Lee teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 2 above. Kubota and Lee further receiving first indication information from the second core network device, wherein when the first indication information is a first value, the transmission mode of the first service is the acknowledged mode; or when the first indication information is a second value, the transmission mode of the first service is the unacknowledged mode (Kubota, [84], e.g., receiving a RLC bit from a RLC entity, wherein when the RLC bit is a first value, the mode is AM or UM; [71], e.g., receiving a signal or message from a RLC entity, wherein when the signal or message is an ACK message, the transmission mode of the service is AM; Lee, e.g, teaches a core network (i.e., inherently comprised core network device) as a RLC entity [13])
As per claim 4, Kubota, Wich and Lee teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 2 above. Kubota and Lee further teach when first indication information is received from the second core network device, determining that the transmission mode of the first service is the acknowledged mode, or when the first indication information is not received from the second core network device, determining that the transmission mode of the first service is the unacknowledged mode; or when the first indication information is received from the second core network device, determining that the transmission mode of the first service is the unacknowledged mode, or when the first indication information is not received from the second core network device, determining that the transmission mode of the first service is the acknowledged mode (Kubota, [84], e.g., when the RLC bit is received from the RLC entity, determining that the mode is AM or UM; [71], e.g., when first message/signal is received from the RLC entity, determining that the transmission mode of the service is the AM; Lee, e.g., teaches a core network (i.e., inherently comprised core network device) as a RLC entity [13]).
As per claim 12, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claim 13, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights