CTFR 18/483,938 CTFR 85997 DETAILED ACTION In response to communications filed 01/06/2026. Claims 1-30 are pending for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-12, 14, 16-25, 27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0351725 A1) in view of Rossbach et al. (US 2024/0284238 A1) hereinafter “Kim and “Rossbach” respectively . Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches A receiver for wireless communication (Kim: paragraph 0529 & Fig. 2L, user equipment) , comprising: one or more memories (Kim: paragraph 0529 & Fig. 2L, storage device) ; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Kim: paragraph 0529 & Fig. 2L, connection processors coupled to storage device) , configured to cause the receiver to: receive, at a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer of the receiver (Kim: paragraph 0524 & Fig. 2K, receive data from lower layer device (i.e. PDCP); see also paragraphs 0128-0130, receive from PDCP layer) , PDCP traffic including a plurality of packets associated with a bearer (Kim: paragraph 0524 & Fig. 2K, said receive data from lower layer device; see also paragraph 0315, traffic associated with respective bearer) ; select, for the plurality of packets, between immediate delivery (Kim: paragraph 0527 & Fig. 2K, process data according to out-of-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0227 & 0315, applying out-of-order delivery) or ordered delivery (Kim: paragraph 0526 & Fig. 2K, process data according to in-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0226 & 0315, set or activate in-order delivery) ; and deliver the plurality of packets in accordance with the selection between immediate or ordered delivery for the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K, process received data and transfer processed data to upper layer according to either in-order delivery or out-of-order delivery) . Kim fails to explicitly teach select between immediate delivery or ordered delivery by the PDCP layer and independently for each packet based at least in part on one or more packet parameters associated with the packet. However, Rossbach from an analogous art similarly teaches selective in-order or per-packet out of order delivery at the PDCP layer of a user equipment to immediately relay received information on a per-packet basis based on header information, payload content, QoS rules etc. (Rossbach, paragraphs 0025 & 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include selective per-packet delivery at the PDCP layer based on per-packet information as taught by Rossbach so as to distinguish between different types of packets associated with the same bearer that may require immediate delivery. Regarding Claim 2, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to select between immediate delivery or ordered delivery, are configured to cause the receiver to select immediate delivery for a packet of the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraph 0527 & Fig. 2K, process data according to out-of-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0227 & 0315, applying out-of-order delivery) , and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to deliver the plurality of packets, are configured to cause the receiver to: update a PDCP receive status for the packet to indicate that the packet is received (Kim: paragraphs 0185-0188, generate a PDCP status report) ; and immediately deliver the packet (Kim: paragraph 0190, perform data retransmission (data not successfully transmitted) after receiving PDCP status report) . Regarding Claim 3, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein a sequence number associated with the packet is out of sequence, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to deliver the packet using immediate delivery (Kim: paragraph 0115, reordering PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer in order based on PDCP Sequence Numbers (SNs), and may include a function of transferring data to an upper layer in the reordered order) , are further configured to cause the receiver to: start a reordering timer associated with out of order delivery (Kim: paragraph 0332, PDCP reordering timer) . Regarding Claim 4, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to select between immediate delivery or ordered delivery (Kim: paragraphs 0526-0527, set either in-order delivery or out-of-order delivery) , are configured to cause the receiver to select ordered delivery for a packet of the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraph 0526 & Fig. 2K, process data according to in-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0226 & 0315, set or activate in-order delivery) , and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to deliver the plurality of packets, are configured to cause the receiver to: deliver the packet in connection with a determination that a sequence number associated with the packet is in sequence (Kim: paragraph 0115, reordering PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer in order based on PDCP Sequence Numbers (SNs) ; or buffer the packet and starting a reordering timer associated with ordered delivery in connection with a determination that the sequence number associated with the packet is out of sequence (Kim: paragraph 0332, PDCP reordering timer) . Regarding Claim 5, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches , wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to select, for each packet of the plurality of packets, between immediate delivery or ordered delivery, are configured to cause the receiver to: select immediate delivery for a first set of packets of the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraphs 0526-0527, set in-order delivery of packets) ; and select ordered delivery for a second set of packets of the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraphs 0526-0527, process data according to out-of-order delivery of packets) . Regarding Claim 6, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to deliver the plurality of packets, are configured to cause the receiver to: deliver the first set of packets using immediate delivery (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K transfer processed data to upper layer according to out-of-order delivery) ; and deliver the second set of packets using ordered delivery (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K transfer processed data to upper layer according to in-order delivery) . Regarding Claim 7, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the plurality of packets are received out of order with respect to sequence numbers associated with the plurality of packets, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to deliver the first set of packets using immediate delivery, are configured to cause the receiver to deliver the first set of packets out of order with respect to sequence numbers associated with the first set of packets (Kim: paragraph 0115, reordering PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer in order based on PDCP Sequence Numbers (SNs), and may include a function of directly transferring data regardless of order) , and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to deliver the second set of packets using ordered delivery, are configured to cause the receiver to deliver the second set of packets in order with respect to sequence numbers associated with the second set of packets (Kim: paragraph 0115, reordering PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer in order based on PDCP Sequence Numbers (SNs), and may include a function of transferring data to an upper layer in the reordered order) . Regarding Claim 8, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first set of packets includes at least one of extended reality packets, virtual reality packets, gaming packets, or voice packets (Kim: paragraph 0061, VoIP packets) . Regarding Claim 10, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more packet parameters associated with the packet include a packet size associated with the packet (Kim: paragraph 0346, window size value associated with received packet) . Regarding Claim 11, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more packet parameters associated with the packet include a type of packet indicated in a packet header associated with the packet (Rossbach, paragraph 0025, header field of a received packet indicates that the packet is designated for OOD) . Examiner recites same reasoning to combine Kim-Rossbach as presented in rejected claim 1. Regarding Claim 12, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the packet header is associated with a higher layer than a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer (Kim: paragraph 0104, UE may receive a setting about whether to use a header of the SDAP layer or whether to use a function of the SDAP layer for each PDCP layer, for each bearer) . Regarding Claim 14, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more packet parameters associated with the packet include a parameter indicated in a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) header or PDCP header associated with the packet (Kim: paragraph 0104, UE may receive a setting about whether to use a header of the SDAP layer or whether to use a function of the SDAP layer for each PDCP layer, for each bearer) . Regarding Claim 16, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the receiver to deliver the plurality of packets, are configured to cause the receiver to: deliver the plurality of packets to an upper layer of the receiver in accordance with the selection between immediate or ordered delivery for each packet of the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K transfer processed data to upper layer according to in-order delivery or out-of-order delivery) . Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches A method of wireless communication performed by a receiver, comprising: receiving, at a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer of the receiver (Kim: paragraph 0524 & Fig. 2K, receive data from lower layer device (i.e. PDCP); see also paragraphs 0128-0130, receive from PDCP layer) , PDCP traffic including a plurality of packets associated with a bearer (Kim: paragraph 0524 & Fig. 2K, said receive data from lower layer device; see also paragraph 0315, traffic associated with respective bearer) ; selecting, for the plurality of packets, between immediate delivery (Kim: paragraph 0527 & Fig. 2K, process data according to out-of-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0227 & 0315, applying out-of-order delivery) or ordered delivery (Kim: paragraph 0526 & Fig. 2K, process data according to in-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0226 & 0315, set or activate in-order delivery) ; and delivering the plurality of packets in accordance with the selection between immediate or ordered delivery for the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K, process received data and transfer processed data to upper layer according to either in-order delivery or out-of-order delivery) . Kim fails to explicitly teach select between immediate delivery or ordered delivery by the PDCP layer and independently for each packet based at least in part on one or more packet parameters associated with the packet. However, Rossbach from an analogous art similarly teaches selective in-order or per-packet out of order delivery at the PDCP layer of a user equipment to immediately relay received information on a per-packet basis based on header information, payload content, QoS rules etc. (Rossbach, paragraphs 0025 & 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include selective per-packet delivery at the PDCP layer based on per-packet information as taught by Rossbach so as to distinguish between different types of packets associated with the same bearer that may require immediate delivery. Regarding Claim 18, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein selecting between immediate delivery or ordered delivery comprises selecting immediate delivery for a packet of the plurality of packets, and wherein delivering the plurality of packets comprises: updating a PDCP receive status for the packet to indicate that the packet is received (Kim: paragraphs 0185-0188, generate a PDCP status report) ; and immediately delivering the packet (Kim: paragraph 0190, perform data retransmission (data not successfully transmitted) after receiving PDCP status report) . Regarding Claim 19, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein a sequence number associated with the packet is out of sequence (Kim: paragraph 0115, reordering PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer in order based on PDCP Sequence Numbers (SNs) , and wherein delivering the packet using immediate delivery further comprises: starting a reordering time associated with out of order delivery (Kim: paragraph 0332, PDCP reordering timer) . Regarding Claim 20, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein selecting between immediate delivery or ordered delivery comprises selecting ordered delivery for a packet of the plurality of packets, and wherein delivering the plurality of packets comprises: delivering the packet in connection with a determination that a sequence number associated with the packet is in sequence (Kim: paragraph 0115, reordering PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer in order based on PDCP Sequence Numbers (SNs) ; or buffering the packet and starting a reordering timer associated with ordered delivery in connection with a determination that the sequence number associated with the packet is out of sequence (Kim: paragraph 0332, PDCP reordering timer) . Regarding Claim 21, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein selecting, for each packet of the plurality of packets, between immediate delivery or ordered delivery comprises: selecting immediate delivery for a first set of packets of the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraphs 0526-0527, set in-order delivery of packets) ; and selecting ordered delivery for a second set of packets of the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraphs 0526-0527, process data according to out-of-order delivery of packets) . Regarding Claim 22, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein delivering the plurality of packets comprises: delivering the first set of packets using immediate delivery (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K transfer processed data to upper layer according to out-of-order delivery) ; and delivering the second set of packets using ordered delivery (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K transfer processed data to upper layer according to in-order delivery) . Regarding Claim 23, Kim-Rossbach m teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the plurality of packets are received out of order with respect to sequence numbers associated with the plurality of packets, wherein delivering the first set of packets using immediate delivery comprises delivering the first set of packets out of order with respect to sequence numbers associated with the first set of packets (Kim: paragraph 0115, reordering PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer in order based on PDCP Sequence Numbers (SNs), and may include a function of directly transferring data regardless of order) , and wherein delivering the second set of packets using ordered delivery comprises delivering the second set of packets in order with respect to sequence numbers associated with the second set of packets (Kim: paragraph 0115, reordering PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer in order based on PDCP Sequence Numbers (SNs), and may include a function of transferring data to an upper layer in the reordered order) . Regarding Claim 24, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more packet parameters associated with the packet include a packet size associated with the packet (Kim: paragraph 0346, window size value associated with received packet) . Regarding Claim 25, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more packet parameters associated with the packet include a type of packet indicated in a packet header associated with the packet (Rossbach, paragraph 0025, header field of a received packet indicates that the packet is designated for OOD) . Examiner recites same reasoning to combine Kim-Rossbach as presented in rejected claim 17. Regarding Claim 27, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more packet parameters associated with the packet include a parameter indicated in a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) header or PDCP header associated with the packet (Kim: paragraph 0104, UE may receive a setting about whether to use a header of the SDAP layer or whether to use a function of the SDAP layer for each PDCP layer, for each bearer) . Regarding Claim 29, Kim teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication (Kim: paragraph 0542, computer readable storage medium storing program) , the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a receiver (Kim: paragraph 0542, program executed by processor within electronic device) cause the receiver to: receive, at a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer of the receiver (Kim: paragraph 0524 & Fig. 2K, receive data from lower layer device (i.e. PDCP); see also paragraphs 0128-0130, receive from PDCP layer) , PDCP traffic including a plurality of packets associated with a bearer (Kim: paragraph 0524 & Fig. 2K, said receive data from lower layer device; see also paragraph 0315, traffic associated with respective bearer) ; select, for the plurality of packets, between immediate delivery (Kim: paragraph 0527 & Fig. 2K, process data according to out-of-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0227 & 0315, applying out-of-order delivery) or ordered delivery (Kim: paragraph 0526 & Fig. 2K, process data according to in-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0226 & 0315, set or activate in-order delivery) ; and deliver the plurality of packets in accordance with the selection between immediate or ordered delivery for the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K, process received data and transfer processed data to upper layer according to either in-order delivery or out-of-order delivery) . Kim fails to explicitly teach select between immediate delivery or ordered delivery by the PDCP layer and independently for each packet based at least in part on one or more packet parameters associated with the packet. However, Rossbach from an analogous art similarly teaches selective in-order or per-packet out of order delivery at the PDCP layer of a user equipment to immediately relay received information on a per-packet basis based on header information, payload content, QoS rules etc. (Rossbach, paragraphs 0025 & 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include selective per-packet delivery at the PDCP layer based on per-packet information as taught by Rossbach so as to distinguish between different types of packets associated with the same bearer that may require immediate delivery. Regarding Claim 30, Kim teaches An apparatus for wireless communication (Kim: paragraph 0529 & Fig. 2L, user equipment) , comprising: means for receiving, at a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer of the receiver (Kim: paragraph 0524 & Fig. 2K, receive data from lower layer device (i.e. PDCP); see also paragraphs 0128-0130, receive from PDCP layer) , PDCP traffic including a plurality of packets associated with a bearer (Kim: paragraph 0524 & Fig. 2K, said receive data from lower layer device; see also paragraph 0315, traffic associated with respective bearer) ; means for selecting, for the plurality of packets, between immediate delivery (Kim: paragraph 0527 & Fig. 2K, process data according to out-of-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0227 & 0315, applying out-of-order delivery) or ordered delivery (Kim: paragraph 0526 & Fig. 2K, process data according to in-order delivery function; see also paragraphs 0226 & 0315, set or activate in-order delivery) ; and means for delivering the plurality of packets in accordance with the selection between immediate or ordered delivery for the plurality of packets (Kim: paragraph 0526-0527 & Fig. 2K, process received data and transfer processed data to upper layer according to either in-order delivery or out-of-order delivery) . Kim fails to explicitly teach select between immediate delivery or ordered delivery by the PDCP layer and independently for each packet based at least in part on one or more packet parameters associated with the packet. However, Rossbach from an analogous art similarly teaches selective in-order or per-packet out of order delivery at the PDCP layer of a user equipment to immediately relay received information on a per-packet basis based on header information, payload content, QoS rules etc. (Rossbach, paragraphs 0025 & 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include selective per-packet delivery at the PDCP layer based on per-packet information as taught by Rossbach so as to distinguish between different types of packets associated with the same bearer that may require immediate delivery . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9, 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-Rossbach in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0374237 A1) hereinafter “Li.” Regarding Claim 9, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein user datagram protocol (UDP) packets, of the plurality of packets, are included in the first set of packets, and wherein transmission control protocol (TCP) packets, of the plurality of packets, are included in the second set of packets. However, Li from an analogous art similarly teaches transmitting PDCP PDU through in-order delivery and out of order delivery and further teaches applying out of order delivery for UDP packets and in order delivery for a TCP flow (Li: paragraph 0098). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim-Rossbach to include both in-order delivery and out of order delivery as taught by Li so as to allow in order or out of order deliver based on different type of packets such as UDP and TCP. Regarding Claim 13, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach select immediate delivery in connection with the packet header associated with the packet indicating that the packet is a user datagram protocol (UDP) packet; or select ordered delivery in connection with the packet header associated with the packet indicating that the packet is a transmission control protocol (TCP) packet. However, Li from an analogous art similarly teaches transmitting PDCP PDU through in-order delivery and out of order delivery and further teaches applying out of order delivery for UDP packets and in order delivery for a TCP flow (Li: paragraph 0098). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim-Rossbach to include both in-order delivery and out of order delivery as taught by Li so as to allow in order or out of order deliver based on different type of packets such as UDP and TCP. Regarding Claim 26, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach selecting immediate delivery in connection with the packet header associated with the packet indicating that the packet is a user datagram protocol (UDP) packet; or selecting ordered delivery in connection with the packet header associated with the packet indicating that the packet is a transmission control protocol (TCP) packet. However, Li from an analogous art similarly teaches transmitting PDCP PDU through in-order delivery and out of order delivery and further teaches applying out of order delivery for UDP packets and in order delivery for a TCP flow (Li: paragraph 0098). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim-Rossbach to include both in-order delivery and out of order delivery as taught by Li so as to allow in order or out of order deliver based on different type of packets such as UDP and TCP . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-Rossbach in view of Cho et al. (US 2020/0236579 A1) hereinafter “Cho.” Regarding Claim 15, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more packet parameters associated with the packet include a packet size (Kim: paragraph 0346, window size value associated with received packet) and a packet arrival time (Kim: paragraph 0188, transmission time). Kim fails to explicitly teach select between immediate delivery or ordered delivery based at least in part on the packet size and the packet arrival time using a machine learning model. However, Cho from an analogous art teaches similarly teaches an in-order delivery and out-of-order delivery operation (Cho: paragraphs 0275-0278) and further teaches an AI device using a machine learning algorithm to determine how to process data based on the obtained information (Cho: paragraph 0205). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim-Rossbach to include machine learning as taught by Cho to further determine how to process and/or transfer data. Regarding Claim 28, Kim-Rossbach teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the one or more packet parameters associated with the packet include a packet size (Kim: paragraph 0346, window size value associated with received packet) and a packet arrival time (Kim: paragraph 0188, transmission time). Kim fails to explicitly teach selecting between immediate delivery or ordered delivery based at least in part on the packet size and the packet arrival time using a machine learning model. However, Cho from an analogous art teaches similarly teaches an in-order delivery and out-of-order delivery operation (Cho: paragraphs 0275-0278) and further teaches an AI device using a machine learning algorithm to determine how to process data based on the obtained information (Cho: paragraph 0205). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim-Rossbach to include machine learning as taught by Cho to further determine how to process and/or transfer data . Response to Amendment Paragraph 55 and Figs. 1-2 of the instant specification discloses the structure and the acts performed by those structures, which correspond to the means-plus-function features of claim 30. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 17, 29 and 30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rossbach et al. (US 2024/0284239 A1) teaches per-packet OOD at the PDCP layer of a UE based on UE preference and/or capability information regarding OOD (paragraphs 0039 & 0054-0055) . 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 NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm. 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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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. /NAJEEB ANSARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463 /ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 2 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 3 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 4 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 5 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 6 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 7 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 8 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 9 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 10 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 11 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 12 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 13 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 14 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 15 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 16 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 17 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 18 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 19 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 20 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 21 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 22 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 23 Art Unit: 2463 Application/Control Number: 18/483,938 Page 24 Art Unit: 2463
Prosecution Insights