DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s Submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 10 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 10 were previously presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 Para.:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second Para., 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 1, the claim is unclear and ambiguous. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. For example, the claim states that when second ACK SN is less than the first ACK SN, the transmitting-end device transmits the packet corresponding to the second ACK SN to the receiving-end- device. While claim 2 as dependent claim of claim 1, states that when the second ACK SN is not greater than (equal or less than) the first ACK SN, the transmitting- end-device and the receiving -end-device execute a radio link control reestablishment process for transmitting the missing packet. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second Para.. The examiner suggests the applicant to amend the claims by writing out with the subject matters that are same or similar as those recited in claims 1 and 2.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that:
The sending end device of Xu does not compare two acknowledgment sequence numbers (Page 2, Remarks).
In response to A) the examiner respectfully disagrees. Xu explicitly discloses at Para.2, Page 15 a comparison of the values of ACK SNs, specifically, the receiving device sets the current maximum ACK SN in the status PDUs, when assembling them, so the value of the ACK SN indicates the state of the RLC SDUs with sequence numbers less than the ACK SN, that implies the sender maintains a record of the last received ACK SN value. This comparison help the transmitter to find out the which RLC SDU have been received correctly, thereby reducing/avoiding the repeated transmission, as stated in Para. 1, Page 16. In addition, Para. 10, Page 9 indicates that the transmitter device compares the new AKN SN value with the previously recorded ACK SN value. Therefore, the office action still teaches the limitations as currently claimed.
Xu and all cited references fail to disclose the technical feature "when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number, the transmitting-end- device transmits the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end-device" in claim 1 of the present application (Page 2, Remarks).
In response to B) the examiner respectfully disagrees. Xu discloses ( Para. 2, Page 2, , states “an RLC protocol data unit (protocol data unit PDU) can match the size of RLC PDU MAC layer specified by the user. receiving end device of the AM entity receives RLC PDU of SN=x1, will the current highest received state variable be set to x1 + 1. if SN is less than x1 + 1 present in the RLC PDU is not completely received data packet”, that implies the comparison between the ACK SNs of the current and the received one. The Para.3, Page 2, states “when the receiving end device receives the first RLC SDU segment (assuming SO=a) SN=x, current highest received state variable will be set to x + 1, because the SN is less than x + 1 present in the RLC SDU is not received completely, so the RLC SDU will be started T-reordering timer” which describes the ACK_SN as the sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has fully received by the receiving-end-device and the receiving-end-device updates the ACK-SN to reflect the highest sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has been completely received. Also, in Para. 2, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device does not receive the SN=x2 RLC PDU sending end device after receiving the RLC status report, the retransmission SN=x2 of the RLC PDU” which confirm that the sending-ending-device retransmit the packet after receiving RLC status report. Para. 3, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device is not completely receives the SN=x RLC SDU, the sending end device will re-transmission receiving end device does not receive the RLC SDU segment “, Para. 1, Page 4 states “Therefore, when the receiving end device status PDU to the transmitting end device N feedback included in all sequence number x + 1 RLC SDU reception state, if it still comprises receiving state of RLC SDU sequence number of x, can be considered not received RLC SDU segment has been lost”, these parts indicate that the method can perform the comparison between the received ACK SN (second ACK SN) with current ACK SN (from the previous transmission, first ACK SN), and can retransmit or feedback state of RLC SDU sequence number less than x or x+1. Para. 2 and 10, Page 10 describe that this technique can avoid the repeating unnecessary transmission).
Moreover, in response to all cited references fail to disclose the …., the examiner respectfully disagrees, Ho also describes the AKC SN has been set as the first missing PDU SN that is not included in the report sent to the base station (see [0049]), in this Para. Ho teaches the ACK SN of the incoming report is compared with the first missing PDU SN from the status report (i.e., the report at the BS, which is already received) to determine whether the incoming report is a partial or full status report. [0011] lines 5-8, states “By monitoring the sequence numbers, the receiving RLC can identify missing PDUs. Status reports can then be fed back to the transmitting RLC, requesting retransmission of missing PDUs” that implies the identification of the missing PDU based on the ACK SN. [0062] lines 7-16 describes the comparator 402, which is used for comparing the ACK SN values, if the ACK SN in the coming report (the second ACK SN) is less than or equal to the first missing PDU SN from the status report (first ACK SN in the report at the BS), it indicates that the incoming report is a partial report (see [0055], lines 12-21, [0066], lines 8-17 and [0061], lines 16-21). [0049] lines 1-5 states that “the status report dispatched to the base station or eNB by the access terminal has an ACK SN field that has typically been set to the sequence number of first missing PDU's SN (e.g., the first missing PDU SN not included in the report sent to the base station or eNB)” that means the first missing PDU is considered as the first ACK SN since ACK SN field of the current status report corresponds to the first missing PDU that was missing in the previous status report that, see also [0053] lines 27-34 which confirms that the transmitter track the progress of the missing PDU reporting aver multiple status reports, which required comparing between the ACK SN values. Therefore, the office action still teaches the limitations as currently claimed.
Applicant argues that the independent claim 6 is allowable for similar reasons (Page 3, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, for at least the same reasons given in the response above, and as detailed in the Claim Rejections section.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims 2, 5, 7 and 10 are allowable for similar reasons (Page 3, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, for at least the same reasons given in the response above, and as detailed in the Claim Rejections section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
6. Claims 1-2, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US-20090268683 A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN-109391376-A), please refer to the attached English translation version.
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Ho teaches A system for transmitting a packet based on a status report (Fig. 2 shows a system that transmits radio link control (RLC) protocol status reports in a wireless communication environment, Figs. 1-2, [0016], lines 3-5, Claim 11, lines 1-6); comprising, a transmitting-end-device; and a receiving-end-device communicatively connected to the transmitting-end-device (“Referring now to Fig. 1, a wireless communication system….” a transmitting-end-device (base station 102, Fig. 1) and a receiving-end-device (access terminal 116, Fig. 1) [0044] and [0011], lines 1-5, Figs. 2 and 6 illustrates the two devices are communicatively connected to each other for exchange the information regarding the reports, [0066], lines 17-21, “wherein the methods include obtaining status reports that contain acknowledgment sequence number ACK_SN fields,” [0022] lines 3-5 and claim 27, lines 3-8) wherein the transmitting-end-device receives a first status report from the receiving-end-device, wherein the first status report comprises a first acknowledgment sequence number (the access terminal or UE commences dispatch of the first partial status report to the BS, [0015], 21-23, access terminal or (UE) can set the Acknowledgment Sequence Number (ACK SN) in the status report, as states in [0049], lines 1-5, “the status report dispatched to the base station or eNB by the access terminal has an ACK SN field that has typically been set to the sequence number of first missing PDU's SN (e.g., the first missing PDU SN not included in the report sent to the base station or eNB).”); the transmitting-end device receives a second status report from the receiving-end device, wherein the second status report comprises a second acknowledgment sequence number (“the status report dispatched to the base station or eNB (base station 204, Fig. 4) by the access terminal (access terminal 202, Fig. 3) has an ACK SN field ….”, [0049], lines 1-3 and [0048] lines 11-14, “report generation component 208 can be responsible for creating status reports that are sent to the servicing base station,” [0053], lines 1-3, [0011], lines 5-8, [0049], lines 1-3, which means more than one status report, the access terminal or UE commences dispatch of the first partial status report to the BS, [0015], 21-23, access terminal or (UE) can set the Acknowledgment Sequence Number (ACK SN) in the status report, as states in [0049], lines 1-5, “the status report dispatched to the base station or eNB by the access terminal has an ACK SN field that has typically been set to the sequence number of first missing PDU's SN (e.g., the first missing PDU SN not included in the report sent to the base station or eNB)”);
Ho fails to teach when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number, the transmitting-end device transmits the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end- device
However, Xu teaches when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number, the transmitting-end device transmits the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end- device ( ( Para. 2, Page 2, , states “an RLC protocol data unit (protocol data unit PDU) can match the size of RLC PDU MAC layer specified by the user. receiving end device of the AM entity receives RLC PDU of SN=x1, will the current highest received state variable be set to x1 + 1. if SN is less than x1 + 1 present in the RLC PDU is not completely received data packet”, that implies the comparison between the ACK SNs of the current and the received one. The Para.3, Page 2, states “when the receiving end device receives the first RLC SDU segment (assuming SO=a) SN=x, current highest received state variable will be set to x + 1, because the SN is less than x + 1 present in the RLC SDU is not received completely, so the RLC SDU will be started T-reordering timer” which describes the ACK_SN as the sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has fully received by the receiving-end-device and the receiving-end-device updates the ACK-SN to reflect the highest sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has been completely received. Also, in Para. 2, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device does not receive the SN=x2 RLC PDU sending end device after receiving the RLC status report, the retransmission SN=x2 of the RLC PDU” which confirm that the sending-ending-device retransmit the packet after receiving RLC status report. Para. 3, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device is not completely receives the SN=x RLC SDU, the sending end device will re-transmission receiving end device does not receive the RLC SDU segment “, Para. 1, Page 4 states “Therefore, when the receiving end device status PDU to the transmitting end device N feedback included in all sequence number x + 1 RLC SDU reception state, if it still comprises receiving state of RLC SDU sequence number of x, can be considered not received RLC SDU segment has been lost”, these parts indicate that the method can perform the comparison between the received ACK SN (second ACK SN) with current ACK SN (from the previous transmission, first ACK SN), and can retransmit or feedback state of RLC SDU sequence number less than x or x+1. Para. 2 and 10, Page 10 describe that this technique can avoid the repeating unnecessary transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ho to incorporate the teachings of Xu (in analogous art) by adding transmitting, by the transmitting-end-device, the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end-device when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number to provide a robust solution of repeating transmission of RLC especially with the differences between the LTE and 5G layers. (Xu, Abstract, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Ho and Xu teach the system of claim 1.
Ho teaches when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is not greater than the first acknowledgment sequence number, the transmitting- end-device and the receiving -end-device execute a radio link control reestablishment process (“The RLC retransmission mechanism can be responsible from providing error-free delivery of data to higher layers. This can be accomplished by a transmission protocol that operates between the RLC entities in the receiver and the transmitter. By monitoring the sequence numbers, the receiving RLC can identify missing PDUs. Status reports can then be fed back to the transmitting RLC, requesting retransmission of missing PDUs”, [0011], lines 1-13 and [0061], lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 6 (currently amended), Ho teaches a method for transmitting a packet based on a status report, suitable for a system comprising a transmitting-end-device and a receiving-end-device (the method (method 600, Fig. 6) for generating and transmitting radio link control (RLC) protocol status reports between the system with the transmitting-end-device (base station 204, Fig. 4) and receiving-end-device (access terminal 202, Fig. 3) in a wireless communication environment as shown in Figs 5-6, [0016] lines 3-6); wherein the method comprises the following steps: receiving, by the transmitting-end-device, a first status report from the receiving-end-device, wherein the first status report comprises a first acknowledgement sequence number (“Referring now to Fig. 1, a wireless communication system….” a transmitting-end-device (base station 102, Fig. 1) and a receiving-end-device (access terminal 116, Fig. 1), [0044] and [0011], lines 1-5, Figs. 2 and 6 illustrates the two devices are communicatively connected to each other for exchange the information regarding the reports, [0066], lines 17-21, “wherein the methods include obtaining status reports that contain acknowledgment sequence number ACK_SN fields,” [0022] lines 3-5 and claim 27, lines 3-8); receiving, by the transmitting-end-device, a second status report from the receiving-end-device, wherein the second status report comprises a second acknowledgement sequence number (“the status report dispatched to the base station or eNB (base station 204, Fig. 4) by the access terminal (access terminal 202, Fig. 3) has an ACK SN field ….”, [0049], lines 1-3 and [0048] lines 11-14, “report generation component 208 can be responsible for creating status reports that are sent to the servicing base station,” [0053], lines 1-3, [0011], lines 5-8, [0049], lines 1-3, which means more than one status report, the access terminal or UE commences dispatch of the first partial status report to the BS, [0015], 21-23, access terminal or (UE) can set the Acknowledgment Sequence Number (ACK SN) in the status report, as states in [0049], lines 1-5, “the status report dispatched to the base station or eNB by the access terminal has an ACK SN field that has typically been set to the sequence number of first missing PDU's SN (e.g., the first missing PDU SN not included in the report sent to the base station or eNB)”); and
Ho fails to teach transmitting, by the transmitting-end-device, the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end-device when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number.
However, Xu teaches transmitting, by the transmitting-end-device, the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end-device when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number ( Para. 2, Page 2, , states “an RLC protocol data unit (protocol data unit PDU) can match the size of RLC PDU MAC layer specified by the user. receiving end device of the AM entity receives RLC PDU of SN=x1, will the current highest received state variable be set to x1 + 1. if SN is less than x1 + 1 present in the RLC PDU is not completely received data packet”, that implies the comparison between the ACK SNs of the current and the received one. The Para.3, Page 2, states “when the receiving end device receives the first RLC SDU segment (assuming SO=a) SN=x, current highest received state variable will be set to x + 1, because the SN is less than x + 1 present in the RLC SDU is not received completely, so the RLC SDU will be started T-reordering timer” which describes the ACK_SN as the sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has fully received by the receiving-end-device and the receiving-end-device updates the ACK-SN to reflect the highest sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has been completely received. Also, in Para. 2, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device does not receive the SN=x2 RLC PDU sending end device after receiving the RLC status report, the retransmission SN=x2 of the RLC PDU” which confirm that the sending-ending-device retransmit the packet after receiving RLC status report. Para. 3, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device is not completely receives the SN=x RLC SDU, the sending end device will re-transmission receiving end device does not receive the RLC SDU segment “, Para. 1, Page 4 states “Therefore, when the receiving end device status PDU to the transmitting end device N feedback included in all sequence number x + 1 RLC SDU reception state, if it still comprises receiving state of RLC SDU sequence number of x, can be considered not received RLC SDU segment has been lost”, these parts indicate that the method can perform the comparison between the received ACK SN (second ACK SN) with current ACK SN (from the previous transmission, first ACK SN), and can retransmit or feedback state of RLC SDU sequence number less than x or x+1. Para. 2 and 10, Page 10 describe that this technique can avoid the repeating unnecessary transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ho to incorporate the teachings of Xu (in analogous art) by adding transmitting, by the transmitting-end-device, the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end-device when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number to provide a robust solution of repeating transmission of RLC especially with the differences between the LTE and 5G layers. (Xu, Abstract, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Ho and Xu teach the method of claim 6.
Ho further teaches executing, by the receiving-end-device and the transmitting-end-device, a radio link control reestablishment process when the second acknowledgement sequence number is not greater than the first acknowledgement sequence number (“The RLC retransmission mechanism can be responsible from providing error-free delivery of data to higher layers. This can be accomplished by a transmission protocol that operates between the RLC entities in the receiver and the transmitter. By monitoring the sequence numbers, the receiving RLC can identify missing PDUs. Status reports can then be fed back to the transmitting RLC, requesting retransmission of missing PDUs.”, [0011], lines 1-13 and [0061], lines 12-21).
7. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Ho (US-20090268683 A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN-109391376-A), please refer to the attached English translation version, further in view of Kim (US-10779356 B2),
Regarding claim 5 (currently amended), Ho and Xu teach the system of claim 1.
Ho further teaches the transmitting-end device determines whether to transmit the packet corresponding to a transmittable sequence number to the receiving-end-device using a probabilistic approach (probabilistic approach/ Inference can be drawn regarding the formation and dispatch of radio link control (RLC) protocol status reports, [0067], lines 10-12, [0011], which means it computes the probability distribution over the possible states (transmittable sequence numbers) based on observation of data and events), and the second status report does not comprise a negative acknowledgment sequence number corresponding to the transmittable sequence number ([0015], “ it will continue disseminating partial reports to the base station or eNB until all the NACK SNs have been included (e.g., up to the VR(MS) value that was indicated in the initial or first partial report sent to the base station or eNB). As will be appreciated by those of moderate skill in this field of endeavor, all the NACK SNs will be included in the partial status reports sent to the base station or eNB at most once”, which confirms that once a missing PDU is successfully received (all the NACK_SNs removed from the second status report) since it sent only at most once, since the receivers uses the NACK_SN for retransmission request of the missing PDUs [0011]. Its sequence number will not appear in the subsequent of status report insert sequence number into the ACK SN field associated with the second partial status report, each partial status report includes different sequence numbers of missing PDUs, [0059]).
Ho fails to teach wherein when the transmitting-end-device determines the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number,
However, Xu further teaches wherein when the transmitting-end-device determines the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number (Para. 2, Page 2 states “an RLC protocol data unit (protocol data unit PDU) can match the size of RLC PDU MAC layer specified by the user. receiving end device of the AM entity receives RLC PDU of SN=x1, will the current highest received state variable be set to x1 + 1. if SN is less than x1 + 1 present in the RLC PDU is not completely received data packet” and Para. 3, Page 2 states “when the receiving end device receives the first RLC SDU segment (assuming SO=a) SN=x, current highest received state variable will be set to x + 1, because the SN is less than x + 1 present in the RLC SDU is not received completely, so the RLC SDU will be started T-reordering timer” which describes the ACK_SN as the sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has fully received by the receiving-end-device and the receiving-end-device updates the ACK-SN to reflect the highest sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has been completely received. Para. 2, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device does not receive the SN=x2 RLC PDU sending end device after receiving the RLC status report, the retransmission SN=x2 of the RLC PDU” which confirm that the sending-ending-device retransmit the packet after receiving RLC status report. Para. 3, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device is not completely receives the SN=x RLC SDU, the sending end device will re-transmission receiving end device does not receive the RLC SDU segment “, Para. 1, Page 4 states “Therefore, when the receiving end device status PDU to the transmitting end device N feedback included in all sequence number x + 1 RLC SDU reception state, if it still comprises receiving state of RLC SDU sequence number of x, can be considered not received RLC SDU segment has been lost”, Para. 2 and 10, Page 10, to avoid repeating transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ho to incorporate the teachings of Xu (in analogous art) by adding transmitting, by the transmitting-end-device, the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end-device when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number to provide a robust solution of repeating transmission of RLC especially with the differences between the LTE and 5G layers. (Xu, Abstract, lines 1-4).
Ho and Xu fail to teach wherein the transmittable sequence number is greater than the second acknowledgment sequence number and less than or equal to the first acknowledgment sequence number
However, Kim teaches wherein the transmittable sequence number is greater than the second acknowledgment sequence number and less than or equal to the first acknowledgment sequence number (“The transmission device that has received the STATUSPDU may not discard…” Col. 44, lines 39-67, describe the scenario when the remittable SN (Missing RLC PDU segment=from 100th byte to 150th byte of a PDU) is greater than the second ACK_SN (ACK_SN=101) , Col 45, lines 1-7, and Col 46, lines 29-36, where the transmitting SN (89) is less than ACK_SN (90), “In other words, the UE may report only the information indicating that the UE has normally received up to the sequence number 89, and may not report on the remaining RLC PDU, ACK_SN=90”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ho in view of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Kim (in analogous art) by adding transmittable sequence number is greater than the second acknowledgment sequence number and less than or equal to the first acknowledgment sequence number to ensure the most necessary information, packets, are transmitted within the available resources (Kim, Col. 46, lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 10 (currently amended), Ho and Xu teach the method of claim 6.
Ho further teaches the transmitting-end device determines whether to transmit the packet corresponding to a transmittable sequence number to the receiving-end-device using a probabilistic approach (probabilistic approach/ Inference can be drawn regarding the formation and dispatch of radio link control (RLC) protocol status reports, [0067], lines 10-12, [0011], which means it computes the probability distribution over the possible states (transmittable sequence numbers) based on observation of data and events), and the second status report does not comprise a negative acknowledgment sequence number corresponding to the transmittable sequence number ([0015], “ it will continue disseminating partial reports to the base station or eNB until all the NACK SNs have been included (e.g., up to the VR(MS) value that was indicated in the initial or first partial report sent to the base station or eNB). As will be appreciated by those of moderate skill in this field of endeavor, all the NACK SNs will be included in the partial status reports sent to the base station or eNB at most once”, which confirms that once a missing PDU is successfully received (all the NACK_SNs removed from the second status report) since it sent only at most once, since the receivers uses the NACK_SN for retransmission request of the missing PDUs [0011]. Its sequence number will not appear in the subsequent of status report insert sequence number into the ACK SN field associated with the second partial status report, each partial status report includes different sequence numbers of missing PDUs, [0059]).
Ho fails to teach when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgement sequence number is less than the first acknowledgement sequence number,
However, Xu further teaches when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgement sequence number is less than the first acknowledgement sequence number, (Para. 2, Page 2 states “an RLC protocol data unit (protocol data unit PDU) can match the size of RLC PDU MAC layer specified by the user. receiving end device of the AM entity receives RLC PDU of SN=x1, will the current highest received state variable be set to x1 + 1. if SN is less than x1 + 1 present in the RLC PDU is not completely received data packet” and Para. 3, Page 2 states “when the receiving end device receives the first RLC SDU segment (assuming SO=a) SN=x, current highest received state variable will be set to x + 1, because the SN is less than x + 1 present in the RLC SDU is not received completely, so the RLC SDU will be started T-reordering timer” which describes the ACK_SN as the sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has fully received by the receiving-end-device and the receiving-end-device updates the ACK-SN to reflect the highest sequence number of the highest RLC SDU that has been completely received. Para. 2, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device does not receive the SN=x2 RLC PDU sending end device after receiving the RLC status report, the retransmission SN=x2 of the RLC PDU” which confirm that the sending-ending-device retransmit the packet after receiving RLC status report. Para. 3, Page 2 states “RLC status report will tell the sending end device and receiving end device is not completely receives the SN=x RLC SDU, the sending end device will re-transmission receiving end device does not receive the RLC SDU segment “, Para. 1, Page 4 states “Therefore, when the receiving end device status PDU to the transmitting end device N feedback included in all sequence number x + 1 RLC SDU reception state, if it still comprises receiving state of RLC SDU sequence number of x, can be considered not received RLC SDU segment has been lost”, Para. 2 and 10, Page 10, to avoid repeating transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ho to incorporate the teachings of Xu (in analogous art) by adding transmitting, by the transmitting-end-device, the packet corresponding to the second acknowledgment sequence number to the receiving-end-device when the transmitting-end-device determines that the second acknowledgment sequence number is less than the first acknowledgment sequence number to provide a robust solution of repeating transmission of RLC especially with the differences between the LTE and 5G layers (Xu, Abstract, lines 1-4).
Ho and Xu fail to teach wherein the transmittable sequence number is greater than the second acknowledgment sequence number and less than or equal to the first acknowledgment sequence number.
However, Kim teaches wherein the transmittable sequence number is greater than the second acknowledgment sequence number and less than or equal to the first acknowledgment sequence number (“The transmission device that has received the STATUSPDU may not discard…” Col. 44, lines 39-67, describe the scenario when the remittable SN (Missing RLC PDU segment=from 100th byte to 150th byte of a PDU) is greater than the second ACK_SN (ACK_SN=101) , Col 45, lines 1-7, and Col 46, lines 29-36, where the transmitting SN (89) is less than ACK_SN (90), “In other words, the UE may report only the information indicating that the UE has normally received up to the sequence number 89, and may not report on the remaining RLC PDU, ACK_SN=90”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ho in view of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Kim (in analogous art) by adding transmittable sequence number is greater than the second acknowledgment sequence number and less than or equal to the first acknowledgment sequence number to ensure the most necessary information, packets, are transmitted within the available resources . (Kim, Col. 46, lines 40-43).
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Donggun Kim (US20200036484A1), Kim et al. (US8634400 B2) and Ho et al. (US20100034095A1) teach methods for transmitting\receiving status reports of the packet data in the mobile communication system.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SANAA S AL SAMAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, 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.
/SANAA AL SAMAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights