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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 16 are objected to because of the following reasons:
For claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 16, the term “and/or” is unclear.
For claims 1, 12, from the claim language, Examiner assumes that it is the at least one processor that perform the functional steps.
However, Examiner recommends Applicants to further clarify the claim language by changing the phrase “cause the apparatus at least to” to “cause the at least one processor at least to”.
Otherwise, if Applicants intends for some other hardware components of the apparatus to perform the steps, then please amend the claims to include those hardware components and clearly indicate that those hardware components perform the steps.
If Applicants intends for any unknown hardware components of the apparatus to perform the steps, then please clearly states so on record. However, Applicants are reminded that doing so will raise 112 issues since then the claim language would impose no limits as to a particular structure for performing the claimed invention; hence the claims may cover all devices for/ways for performing the claimed functions. As thus, there is a failure to provide a clear-cut indication of claim scope because the functional language is not sufficiently precise and definite, resulting in no boundaries on the claim limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, US 20190053206 in view of Elshafie, US 20240243849.
For claim 1. Babaei teaches: An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (Babaei, fig 4, paragraph 60, wireless device include processor, program code instructions stored in memory and executable by the processor to perform operations)
receive, from a serving cell, a configuration for a maximum number of downlink and/or uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes; (Babaei, fig 37, paragraph 207-208, received one or more messages which comprise configuration parameters of the cell, the one or more messages may indicate a second number, the second number is a maximum number of downlink HARQ processes of the cell; fig 38, paragraph 209-210, received one or more messages which comprise configuration parameters of the cell, the one or more messages may indicate a second number, the second number is a maximum number of uplink HARQ processes of the cell; also see fig 22-23, paragraph 192-193 for more information)
and perform downlink control information (DCI) monitoring for downlink or uplink until the maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes is reached, wherein the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is suspended when a corresponding maximum number of downlink or uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes is exceeded. (Babaei, fig 37, paragraph 207-208, monitor control channel until a first number (number of running downlink HARQ timers of downlink HARQ processes) equal the second number (maximum number of downlink HARQ processes), stop monitoring a control channel for the cell in response to the first number being equal to a second number; fig 38, paragraph 209-210, monitor control channel until a first number (number of running uplink HARQ timers of uplink HARQ processes) equal the second number (maximum number of uplink HARQ processes), stop monitoring a control channel for the cell in response to the first number being equal to a second number; paragraph 190, stop monitoring PDCCH/EPDCCH candidates for radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) in response to a number of running HARQ RTT timers being equal to the second HARQ process number (e.g., maximum number of HARQ processes in uplink); also see paragraph 136, wireless device receive DCI in downlink control channel (e.g., PDCCH/EPDCCH))
Babaei doesn’t teach: provide an indication to the serving cell that comprises a desired maximum number of uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes based on an energy level of the apparatus;
Elshafie from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: provide an indication to the serving cell that comprises a desired maximum number of uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes based on an energy level of the apparatus; (Elshafie, paragraph 128-129, energy harvesting device may dynamically modify a quantity of HARQ processes for uplink transmissions, downlink transmissions, sidelink transmissions, or a combination thereof, based on the energy status information; energy harvesting device may transmit L1, L2, or L3 signaling to the network node indicating the quantity of HARQ processes that the energy harvesting device supports; energy harvesting device may indicate a maximum quantity of HARQ processes for downlink and uplink transmissions or may indicate a maximum quantity of HARQ processes for a single transmission direction (e.g., uplink, downlink); also see paragraph 57-58 for more information)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Elshafie into Babaei, since Babaei suggests a technique for a device performing (running) HARQ processes, and Elshafie suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique indicating a maximum number of HARQ processes for downlink and uplink transmissions (which is determined based on the energy status information) that the device supports to a network node to reduce power consumption at the device (Elshafie, paragraph 58) in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 2. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Babaei further teaches: wherein: when the downlink control information (DCI) for downlink is detected, the apparatus is caused to monitor a search space until a maximum configured downlink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes is reached; (Babaei, paragraph 187-188, wireless device receives a downlink control information (DCI) indicating a downlink assignment for downlink transmission and monitors PDCCH/EPDCCH candidates until a number of running HARQ RTT timers being equal to the first HARQ process number (e.g., maximum number of HARQ processes in downlink); paragraph 113, monitoring PDCCH candidates include monitoring in a common search space (e.g., in a primary cell) and UE-specific search space (e.g., in secondary cell))
and when the downlink control information (DCI) for uplink is detected, the apparatus is caused to monitor the search space until the maximum configured uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes is reached. (Babaei, paragraph 189-190, wireless device receives DCI indicating uplink grant for uplink transmission and monitors PDCCH/EPDCCH candidates until a number of running uplink HARQ RTT timers being equal to the second HARQ process number (e.g., maximum number of HARQ processes in uplink); paragraph 113, monitoring PDCCH candidates include monitoring in a common search space (e.g., in a primary cell) and UE-specific search space (e.g., in secondary cell))
For claim 11. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Babaei doesn’t teach: wherein the apparatus is caused to indicate to the serving cell that the apparatus has an unreliable power source.
Elshafie from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the apparatus is caused to indicate to the serving cell that the apparatus has an unreliable power source. (Elshafie, paragraph 112-114, energy harvesting device transmits an energy status message to the network node which indicates energy status information of the energy harvesting device such as an energy status profile, a charging rate profile, a discharging rate profile, and a battery leakage profile; charging rate, discharging rate, battery leakage are indications of an unreliable power source)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Elshafie into Babaei, since Babaei suggests a technique for performing (running) HARQ processes, and Elshafie suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique transmitting an energy status message which include charging rate, discharging rate, battery leakage to a network node so that the network node can determine the appropriate feedback process type (HARQ process, ARQ process, and the like) for the device (Elshafie, paragraph 112-114) in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 12. Babaei teaches: An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (Babaei, fig 4, paragraph 60, wireless device include processor, program code instructions stored in memory and executable by the processor to perform operations)
reconfigure a maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes, (Babaei, fig 37, paragraph 207-208, received one or more messages which comprise configuration parameters of the cell, the one or more messages may indicate a second number, the second number is a maximum number of downlink HARQ processes of the cell; fig 38, paragraph 209-210, received one or more messages which comprise configuration parameters of the cell, the one or more messages may indicate a second number, the second number is a maximum number of uplink HARQ processes of the cell; also see fig 22-23, paragraph 192-193 for more information; clearly the device update (reconfigure) the second number each time it receives the one or more messages)
and perform downlink control information (DCI) monitoring for downlink and/or uplink until the maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes is reached, wherein the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is suspended when a corresponding maximum number of downlink or uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes is exceeded. (Babaei, fig 37, paragraph 207-208, monitor control channel until a first number (number of running downlink HARQ timers of downlink HARQ processes) equal the second number (maximum number of downlink HARQ processes), stop monitoring a control channel for the cell in response to the first number being equal to a second number; fig 38, paragraph 209-210, monitor control channel until a first number (number of running uplink HARQ timers of uplink HARQ processes) equal the second number (maximum number of uplink HARQ processes), stop monitoring a control channel for the cell in response to the first number being equal to a second number; paragraph 190, stop monitoring PDCCH/EPDCCH candidates for radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) in response to a number of running HARQ RTT timers being equal to the second HARQ process number (e.g., maximum number of HARQ processes in uplink); also see paragraph 136, wireless device receive DCI in downlink control channel (e.g., PDCCH/EPDCCH))
Babaei doesn’t teach: determine that a user device with an unreliable power source based on an indication received from the user device;
Elshafie from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: determine that a user device with an unreliable power source based on an indication received from the user device; (Elshafie, paragraph 128-129, energy harvesting device may dynamically modify a quantity of HARQ processes for uplink transmissions, downlink transmissions, sidelink transmissions, or a combination thereof, based on the energy status information (e.g., at least one of status profile, charging rate profile, discharging rate profile, battery leakage rate profile); charging rate, discharging rate, battery leakage are indications of an unreliable power source; implicit that the device gathers (receives) charging rate, discharging rate, battery leakage information from its components; please notes, Examiner interprets the user device and the apparatus to be the same device because of two reasons, first is because the claim language doesn’t state that they are different devices, and second is because the previous step in the claim language which states “perform downlink control information (DCI) monitoring…” can only be performed by a user device and not a base station because it makes no sense for a base station to receive and monitor downlink control information (DCI) when base station sends downlink control information (downlink control information is control information that is sent in the downlink direction from base station to user device))
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Elshafie into Babaei, since Babaei suggests a technique for performing (running) HARQ processes, and Elshafie suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique determining the number of HARQ processes based on energy status information such as charging rate profile, discharging rate profile, battery leakage rate profile (which indicates unreliable power source) to reduce power consumption at the device (Elshafie, paragraph 58) in the analogous art of communication.
Babaei also doesn’t teach: and instruct the user device to operate in a half-duplex operation mode;
Elshafie from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: and instruct the user device to operate in a half-duplex operation mode; (Elshafie, paragraph 87, UE may be configured to employ operating modes that reduce power consumption, such as half-duplex communications; paragraph 185-189, device includes processor executes instructions stored in memory to cause device to perform various functions)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Elshafie into Babaei, since Babaei suggests a technique for device performing (running) HARQ processes, and Elshafie suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique having such device operates in half-duplex modes to reduce power consumption (Elshafie, paragraph 87) in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 13. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 12, and Babaei further teaches: wherein the maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes is reconfigured (Babaei, fig 37, paragraph 207-208, received one or more messages which comprise configuration parameters of the cell, the one or more messages may indicate a second number, the second number is a maximum number of downlink HARQ processes of the cell; fig 38, paragraph 209-210, received one or more messages which comprise configuration parameters of the cell, the one or more messages may indicate a second number, the second number is a maximum number of uplink HARQ processes of the cell; also see fig 22-23, paragraph 192-193 for more information; clearly the device update (reconfigure) the second number each time it receives the one or more messages)
such that the user device operates to one of: (i) transmit a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment or (ii) receive the packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment. (Babaei, paragraph 63, base stations providing a user plane NR PDCP/NR RLC/NR MAC/NR PHY and control plane (NR RRC) protocol terminations towards the wireless device; base stations providing PDCP, RLC terminations towards wireless device means base station and wireless device communicate with each other via PDCP, RLC; also see paragraph 105-106, data from a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity corresponding to a bearer may be duplicated and mapped to a plurality of radio link control (RLC) entities and/or logical channels, a first logical channel of the plurality of logical channels may then be mapped to one or more of a plurality of transmission time intervals (TTIs) for transmission)
Claims 3, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, US 20190053206 in view of Elshafie, US 20240243849 and Xue, US 20200260418.
For claim 3. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Babaei and Elshafie don’t teach: wherein the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is suspended for downlink and/or uplink when one of: uplink layer 2 data is being transmitted, or downlink layer 2 data is being received.
Xue from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is suspended for downlink and/or uplink when one of: uplink layer 2 data is being transmitted, or downlink layer 2 data is being received. (Xue, paragraph 165, terminal stop monitoring downlink control information when receive MAC CE from base station; MAC is layer 2)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Xue into Babaei and Elshafie, since Babaei suggests a technique for stopping monitoring downlink control information, and Xu suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique stopping monitoring downlink control information when a MAC CE is received from base station so that the terminal can enter an opportunity for DRX period in advance thus improve service efficiency and reduce power consumption (Xu, paragraph 5, 165) in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 14. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 12, however Babaei and Elshafie don’t teach: wherein the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is suspended for downlink and/or uplink when one of: uplink layer 2 data is being transmitted or downlink layer 2 data is being received.
Xue from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is suspended for downlink and/or uplink when one of: uplink layer 2 data is being transmitted or downlink layer 2 data is being received. (Xue, paragraph 165, terminal stop monitoring downlink control information when receive MAC CE from base station; MAC is layer 2)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Xue into Babaei and Elshafie, since Babaei suggests a technique for stopping monitoring downlink control information, and Xu suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique stopping monitoring downlink control information when a MAC CE is received from base station so that the terminal can enter an opportunity for DRX period in advance thus improve service efficiency and reduce power consumption (Xu, paragraph 5, 165) in the analogous art of communication.
Claims 4-6, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, US 20190053206 in view of Elshafie, US 20240243849 and Chen, US 20260046891.
For claim 4. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Babaei and Elshafie don’t teach: wherein the suspension of performing the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is ended and monitoring is resumed after a processing time when a complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment is received by the apparatus.
Chen from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the suspension of performing the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is ended and monitoring is resumed after a processing time when a complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment is received by the apparatus. (Chen, paragraph 85-86, PDCCH (DCI) monitoring is resumed when UE receives PDCP or RLC indication, PDCP or RLC indication is triggered based on packet arrival time; paragraph 88, the resuming can be implemented at the time of the starting time of a jitter boundary (packet arrival time) plus a time offset; time offset is processing time)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chen into Babaei and Elshafie, since Babaei suggests a technique for stopping monitoring downlink control channel, and Chen suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique resuming monitoring downlink control channel when a PDCP or RLC indication (which is triggered based on packet arrival time) is received to improve downlink control channel monitoring adaptation to various triggers such as jitter, delay budget (Chen, paragraph 4, 85-86) in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 5. Babaei, Elshafie and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 4, and Chen further teaches: wherein the complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or the radio link control (RLC) segment is for control plane and/or user plane (U-plane). (Chen, paragraph 85-86, PDCP or RLC indication is control information received by UE from higher layer thus PDCP or RLC indication can be considered as control plane because it is control information or user plane because it is received by UE)
For claim 6. Babaei, Elshafie and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 4, and Chen further teaches: wherein the processing time is defined or configured for control plane and is determined for user plane (U-plane). (Chen, paragraph 85-86, PDCCH (DCI) monitoring is resumed when UE receives PDCP or RLC indication, PDCP or RLC indication is triggered based on packet arrival time; PDCP or RLC indication is control information received by UE from higher layer thus PDCP or RLC indication can be considered as control plane because it is control information or user plane because it is received by UE; paragraph 88, the resuming can be implemented at the time of the starting time of a jitter boundary (packet arrival time) plus a time offset; time offset is processing time; implicit that time offset is defined, determined)
For claim 15. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 12, however Babaei and Elshafie don’t teach: wherein the suspension of performing the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is ended and the monitoring is resumed, after a processing time when a complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment is transmitted to the user device.
Chen from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the suspension of performing the downlink control information (DCI) monitoring is ended and the monitoring is resumed, after a processing time when a complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment is transmitted to the user device. (Chen, paragraph 85-86, PDCCH (DCI) monitoring is resumed when UE receives PDCP or RLC indication, PDCP or RLC indication is triggered based on packet arrival time; paragraph 88, the resuming can be implemented at the time of the starting time of a jitter boundary (packet arrival time) plus a time offset; time offset is processing time)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chen into Babaei and Elshafie, since Babaei suggests a technique for stopping monitoring downlink control channel, and Chen suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique resuming monitoring downlink control channel when a PDCP or RLC indication (which is triggered based on packet arrival time) is received to improve downlink control channel monitoring adaptation to various triggers such as jitter, delay budget (Chen, paragraph 4, 85-86) in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 16. Babaei, Elshafie and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and Chen further teaches: wherein the complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or the radio link control (RLC) segment is for control plane and/or user plane (U-plane). (Chen, paragraph 85-86, PDCP or RLC indication is control information received by UE from higher layer thus PDCP or RLC indication can be considered as control plane because it is control information or user plane because it is received by UE)
For claim 17. Babaei, Elshafie and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and Chen further teaches: wherein the processing time is defined or configured for control plane and is determined for user plane (U-plane). (Chen, paragraph 85-86, PDCCH (DCI) monitoring is resumed when UE receives PDCP or RLC indication, PDCP or RLC indication is triggered based on packet arrival time; PDCP or RLC indication is control information received by UE from higher layer thus PDCP or RLC indication can be considered as control plane because it is control information or user plane because it is received by UE; paragraph 88, the resuming can be implemented at the time of the starting time of a jitter boundary (packet arrival time) plus a time offset; time offset is processing time; implicit that time offset is defined, determined)
Claim 7, 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, US 20190053206 in view of Elshafie, US 20240243849 and Chen, US 20260046891 and Mie, US 20080019372.
For claim 7. Babaei, Elshafie and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 6, however Babaei, Elshafie and Chen don’t teach: wherein the processing time determined for the user plane (U-plane) is determined based on a transport block size or service data unit size.
Mie from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the processing time determined for the user plane (U-plane) is determined based on a transport block size or service data unit size. (Mie, paragraph 18, 22, packet processing device includes processing time monitor which estimate processing time based on packet length; a packet is a service data unit; a packet is also a transport block; paragraph 23, packet processing device is applied to user plane device)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Mie into Babaei, Elshafie and Chen, since Chen suggests a technique for resuming monitoring after a processing time, and Mie suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique determining such processing time based on packet length to alleviate the workload of packet processing and thus improves the quality of communication service (Mie, paragraph 9) in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 18. Babaei, Elshafie and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 17, however Babaei, Elshafie and Chen don’t teach: wherein the processing time determined for the user plane (U-plane) is determined based on a transport block size or service data unit size.
Mie from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the processing time determined for the user plane (U-plane) is determined based on a transport block size or service data unit size. (Mie, paragraph 18, 22, packet processing device includes processing time monitor which estimate processing time based on packet length; a packet is a service data unit; a packet is also a transport block; paragraph 23, packet processing device is applied to user plane device)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Mie into Babaei, Elshafie and Chen, since Chen suggests a technique for resuming monitoring after a processing time, and Mie suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique determining such processing time based on packet length to alleviate the workload of packet processing and thus improves the quality of communication service (Mie, paragraph 9) in the analogous art of communication.
Claims 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, US 20190053206 in view of Elshafie, US 20240243849 and Kim, US 20190150217.
For claim 8. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Babaei and Elshafie don’t teach: wherein processing and transmitting or receiving of a complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment are sequential.
Kim from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein processing and transmitting or receiving of a complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment are sequential. (Kim, paragraph 79-88, sequential reordering of PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer based on PDCP sequence number (SN), and delivering data to an upper layer in the reordered order; paragraph 89-101, sequentially delivering RLC SDUs received from a lower layer to an upper layer, and when one RLC SDU which has been segmented into a plurality of RLC SDUs is received, may include reassembling and delivering the plurality of RLC SDUs, the sequential delivery may include at least one of reordering the received RLC PDUs based on RLC sequence number (SN) or PDCP SN)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kim into Babaei and Elshafie, since Babaei suggests a technique for data communication, and Kim suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique sequentially delivering PDCP PDU / RLC SDU received from lower layer to upper layer by reassembling, reordering since those are the main functions of PDCP and RLC in NR (new radio) protocol (Kim, paragraph 79-101) thus including them would ease implementation and improve compatibility in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 19. Babaei and Elshafie disclose all the limitations of claim 12, however Babaei and Elshafie don’t teach: wherein processing and transmitting or receiving of a complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment are sequential.
Kim from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein processing and transmitting or receiving of a complete packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) or radio link control (RLC) segment are sequential. (Kim, paragraph 79-88, sequential reordering of PDCP PDUs received from a lower layer based on PDCP sequence number (SN), and delivering data to an upper layer in the reordered order; paragraph 89-101, sequentially delivering RLC SDUs received from a lower layer to an upper layer, and when one RLC SDU which has been segmented into a plurality of RLC SDUs is received, may include reassembling and delivering the plurality of RLC SDUs, the sequential delivery may include at least one of reordering the received RLC PDUs based on RLC sequence number (SN) or PDCP SN)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kim into Babaei and Elshafie, since Babaei suggests a technique for data communication, and Kim suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique sequentially delivering PDCP PDU / RLC SDU received from lower layer to upper layer by reassembling, reordering since those are the main functions of PDCP and RLC in NR (new radio) protocol (Kim, paragraph 79-101) thus including them would ease implementation and improve compatibility in the analogous art of communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA B HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1:00 PM - 9:35 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, 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.
/KHOA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462