DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 2 and 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, lines 3-5, the claim recites discarding a remaining data packet of a frame including the data packet fails to be transmitted, wherein the remaining data packet is a data packet in the frame other than the data packet that fails to be transmitted. The parent claims make no mention of a “frame” including “a data packet” and a “remaining data packet”. The parent claim merely recites “a data packet”. The manner in which the frame, including multiple data packets, relates to the parent claim is unclear and the manner in which the frame includes a remaining data packet and a data packet that fails to be transmitted is unclear because the parent claim only recites “a data packet” which is “discarded” accordingly. The parent claim should be amended to recite a frame comprising a plurality of data packets. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, lines 1-3, the claim recites wherein data packets of a first application are among the data packet fails . . . . The parent claim merely recites “data packet”. The manner in which the “data packets of a first application are among the data packet that fails” is unclear form the context of the claim. The parent claim merely recites “a data packet”; therefore, the manner in which data packets from a first application are among the data packet is unclear in light of the parent claim. It is unclear as to which “data packet” is referenced as the parent claim merely recites “a data packet”; therefore, the term “a data packet” as recited in lines 3 and 4. The parent claim does not mention a first application or a second QoS flow. The parent claim should be amended to recite the first application as related to the first and second QoS flow and the relationship between the “a data packet” that fails to be transmitted as opposed to “a data packet” that is successfully transmitted. The meaning of the claim cannot be properly ascertained as currently amended. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 2018/0324642 A1), hereinafter referred to as D1.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17-20, D1 discloses packet duplication at a packet data convergence protocol entity, which comprises:
determining first information of a data packet that fails to be transmitted in a first quality of service flow (Referring to Figures 6-9, Upon receiving the ACK 830 at block 840, the transmitting device 805 may discard the untransmitted packets (fails to be transmitted in a first quality of service flow) of the set of copied packets based on receiving the ACK 830. To do this, the transmitting device 805 may indicate to the remaining RLC entities to clear their buffers of the remaining packets of the set of copied packets. In some examples, the RLC entity of the transmitting device 805 that receives the ACK 830 may instruct the other RLC entities of the transmitting device 805 to discard untransmitted packets related to the ACK 830. See paragraphs 0231-0233. Further regarding claim 11, determining a type of traffic that is requesting to be communicated using the communication link (sending a first request). When the packet 935 fails to be successfully decoded or received, the receiving device 910 may generate and transmit a NACK 965 (further regarding claim 17, receiving fifth information, retransmission according to HARQ NACK standard, the retransmitted packet comprises the same sequence number of the original packet that was lost or corrupted, per the standard, see paragraphs 0125-0135 and 0152.). See paragraphs 0182-0184 and 0250-251.);
discarding the data packet that fails to be transmitted (Referring to Figures 7-9, Upon receiving the ACK 830, at block 840, the transmitting device 805 may discard the untransmitted packets of the set of copied packets based on receiving the ACK 830. To do this, the transmitting device 805 may indicate to the remaining RLC entities to clear their buffers of the remaining packets of the set of copied packets (discarding at least one of the data packets fails to be transmitted). See paragraphs 0231-0233.); and
resetting a sequence number of an unsent data packet, so the sequence number of the unsent data packet and a sequence number of a successfully sent data packet are consecutive (Referring to Figures 7-9, If the sequence number of the last successfully delivered packet is greater than a state variable (VD(X)) associated with the transmitting device 905, the packets with sequence number less than the state variable may be discarded by the transmitting device 905. The PDCP entity of the transmitting device 905 may update another state variable (VD(A)) to the next sequence number after the first state variable (VD(X)) (resetting a sequence number of an unsent data packet, so a sequence number of successfully sent data packet are consecutive). See paragraphs 0247-249.)
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses discarding a remaining data packet of a frame including the data packet that fails to be transmitted, wherein the remaining data packet is a data packet in the frame other than the data packet that fails to be transmitted (Referring to Figures 7-9, If the sequence number of the last successfully delivered packet is greater than a state variable (VD(X)) associated with the transmitting device 905, the packets with sequence number less than the state variable may be discarded by the transmitting device 905 (discarding a remaining data packet associated with data packet that fails to be transmitted. The PDCP entity of the transmitting device 905 may update another state variable (VD(A)) to the next sequence number after the first state variable (VD(X)). See paragraphs 0247-249.)
Regarding claims 3 and 12, D1 discloses wherein the data packets of a first application are among the data packets that fails, wherein the data packets are transmitted in the first QoS flow and in a second QoS flow, and wherein a data packet transmitted in the first QoS flow is less important than a data packet transmitted in the second QoS flow (Referring to Figures 7-9, the transmitting device 405 may activate or deactivate the duplication of packets based on the type of traffic being communicated. Different types of traffic may require different performance by the communications network. For example, some traffic may include requirements that the traffic be received with a certain amount of time (e.g., low-latency traffic), some traffic may include requirements that the traffic be received with a certain reliability (e.g., ultra-reliable traffic), other requirements may be present, or a combination (e.g., ultra-reliable low-latency communications). In some instances, the transmitting device 405 may determine that the original packet is URLLC traffic. The transmitting device 405 may duplicate the original packet based on the original traffic being URLLC. The transmitting device 405 may duplicate the original packet to improve the likelihood that at least one of the copies of the original packet (first QoS flow, potentially discarded and therefore considered less important/lower QoS) or the original packet (second QoS flow) itself are received by the receiving device 410. Thus, the likelihood that the URLLC information is received within its requirements may be higher than without duplication of the packets. See paragraphs 0158-0160 and 0169-0176.)
Regarding claims 4 , 14, and 16, D1 discloses wherein the first information comprises one or more of the following information: a frame number of the frame associated with the data packet that fails to be transmitted. a type of the frame associated with the data packet that fails to be transmitted; a location of the data packet that fails to be transmitted in the frame. a quantity of data packets that fail to be transmitted. or transmission control protocol (TCP} layer sequence numbers or internet protocol layer sequence numbers of M data packets, wherein the M data packets are the data packets that fails to be transmitted, or wherein the M data packets are all the data packets associated with the frame associated with the data packet that fails to be transmitted wherein M is a positive integer (Referring to Figures 6-9, Upon receiving the ACK 830, at block 840, the transmitting device 805 may discard the untransmitted packets (type of frame associated with the data packets that fails to be transmitted interpreted as untransmitted duplicate packets) of the set of copied packets based on receiving the ACK 830. To do this, the transmitting device 805 may indicate to the remaining RLC entities to clear their buffers of the remaining packets of the set of copied packets. In some examples, the RLC entity of the transmitting device 805 that receives the ACK 830 may instruct the other RLC entities of the transmitting device 805 to discard untransmitted packets related to the ACK 830. See paragraphs 0231-0233.)
Regarding claim 5, D1 discloses wherein determining the first information of the data packet that fails to be transmitted in the first QoS flow comprises: receiving the first information; or determining the first information based on a data sending status of the first QoS flow; or receiving second information of the data packet that fails to be transmitted in the first QoS flow, and determining the first information based on the second information (Referring to Figures 6-9, Upon receiving the ACK 830, at block 840, the transmitting device 805 may discard the untransmitted packets (receiving the first information interpreted as storing of the untransmitted packets) of the set of copied packets based on receiving the ACK 830. To do this, the transmitting device 805 may indicate to the remaining RLC entities to clear their buffers of the remaining packets of the set of copied packets. In some examples, the RLC entity of the transmitting device 805 that receives the ACK 830 may instruct the other RLC entities of the transmitting device 805 to discard untransmitted packets related to the ACK 830. See paragraphs 0231-0233.)
Regarding claim 6, D1 discloses wherein the second information comprises one or more of the following information (Note, the claim limitation is dependent upon a parent claim written in the alternative form; therefore, the claim is disclosed in light of the parent claim rejection.)
Regarding claims 7 and 15, D1 discloses wherein the second information comprises the sequence numbers of the GTP packet headers associated with the M data packets and determining the first information based on the second information comprises (Note, the claim limitation is dependent upon a parent claim written in the alternative form; therefore, the claim is disclosed in light of the parent claim rejection.)
Regarding claim 8, D1 discloses retransmitting N data packets in a second QoS flow, wherein the N data packets belong to the data packet that fails to be transmitted, and wherein the N data packets are at least one data packet of a frame of an image of a first application, wherein N is a positive integer (Referring to Figures 1-4, The MAC layer may also use Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) to provide retransmission at the MAC layer to improve link efficiency. In the control plane, the Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol layer may provide establishment, configuration, and maintenance of an RRC connection between a UE 115 and a network device 105-c, network device 105-b, or core network 130 supporting radio bearers for user plane data. At the Physical (PHY) layer, transport channels may be mapped to physical channels. See paragraph 0125. The cleared data packets may include data pending for new transmission or data pending for retransmission (retransmitting N data packet packets in the second QoS flow). Following reset of each RLC instance, packet transmission of at least duplicate packets over the RLC instances may be reestablished and implemented. By communicating the same packet of data by multiple legs the likelihood that a receiving device receives at least one of the packets may be increased. In some examples, transmitting duplicate packets using different paths may help the wireless communication system 200 meet transmission requirements for some types of traffic (e.g., ultra-low-latency, ultra-reliable packets). See paragraphs 0133. Transmitting video packets (a frame of image of the first application). See paragraph 0003.)
Regarding claim 9, D1 discloses sending an unsent data packet based on determining a network is recovered to a normal state; or sending the unsent data packet based on expiration of a timer (Referring to Figures 7-9, At block 930, upon forwarding the packet 935 to the receiving device 910, the transmitting device 905 may start a duplication timer. The duplication timer may be configured to indicate when another duplicate packet of the packet 935 may be transmitted to the receiving device 910 (interpreted as unsent data packet transmitted based on expiration of a first timer as the duplicate packet is transmitted according to the timer). The duplication timer may indicate a time that is sufficient to transmit the packet 935 and receive and ACK 950 or NACK 965 back from the receiving device 910. A duplicate packet may be transmitted to the receiving device based on whether an ACK 950 is received, a NACK is received, or whether the timer expires without receiving an ACK. In some examples, the duplication timer may be associated with one or more packets by a state variable VD(X). In some examples, more than one duplication timer may be used at the same time. If multiple duplication timers are being used, each duplication timer of the transmitting device may be associated with a different state variable. See paragraphs 0242-0244.)
Regarding claim 10, D1 discloses wherein determining that the network is recovered to the normal state comprises (Note, the claim limitation is dependent upon a parent claim written in the alternative form; therefore, the claim is disclosed in light of the parent claim rejection.)
Regarding claim 13, D1 discloses receiving, from the access network device, second information of the data packet that fails to be transmitted in the first QoS flow; determining, based on the second information, first information of the data packet that fails to be transmitted in the first QoS flow; and the first information to an application server hosting a first application associated with the data packet that fails to be transmitted (Referring to Figures 8-10, When the packet 935 fails to be successfully decoded or received, the receiving device 910 may generate and transmit a NACK 965 (receiving second information for the access network device, determining based on second information the first information fails to be transmitted in the first QoS flow). A duplicate packet may be transmitted to the receiving device based on whether an ACK 950 is received, a NACK is received (sending the first information to an application server, hosting a first application associated with the data packet that fails to be transmitted), or whether the timer expires without receiving an ACK. See paragraphs 0243-0254.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks, regarding claims 2 and 3, the Applicant argues the amendments to the claims overcomes the 112(b) rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as additional 112(b) related issues persist, see rejection above for further explanation. Further amendment and clarification is required. On page 9 of the remarks, regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues D1 does not disclose discarding failed packets and does not reset sequence numbers. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under a broad literal reasonable claim interpretation the prior art teaches the claimed limitations, as the claims do set forth any functional or structural limitations which precludes the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed invention from the prior art. D1 teaches the transmitting device 805 may discard the untransmitted packets (fails to be transmitted in a first quality of service flow) of the set of copied packets based on receiving the ACK 830. See paragraphs 0182-0184 and 0250-251. D1 teaches the transmitting device 805 may discard the untransmitted packets of the set of copied packets based on receiving the ACK 830. To do this, the transmitting device 805 may indicate to the remaining RLC entities to clear their buffers of the remaining packets of the set of copied packets (discarding at least one of the data packets fails to be transmitted). See paragraphs 0231-0233. The Applicant argues D1 does not disclose discarding packets failed to be transmitted (the claim makes no mention of original packet due to transmission failure) and resetting sequence numbers in transmitted packets as a response to the failed transmission (the claim merely resets “a” sequence number and the limitation “so . . .” is merely an intended-use limitation reciting some future intended use and does not comprise a positive limitation in which a step is actually performed; therefore, it is not afforded patentable weight). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., resetting a sequence numbers in transmitted packets as a response to the failed transmission) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claimed invention presents a number of broad literal reasonable claim interpretations that encompass more than merely the instant invention. The claims are very broad in nature and presents a number of broad literal reasonable claim interpretations as discussed by the Examiner. The Examiner suggests amending the claims to more explicitly recite the instant invention, as argued in the remarks, to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al. (US 2021/0258111 A1) - The data flow processing method includes receiving, by an electronic device, first information, where the first information is used to indicate a transmission manner of data flow(s). The method also includes processing, by the electronic device, the data flow(s) based on the first information.
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 DONALD L MILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-3094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9-5 PM EST.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
DONALD L. MILLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/Donald L Mills/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights