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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 9, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kuo does not disclose “protocol data unit (PDU) set importance (PSI) based discard.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. This feature is taught in paragraph 66 of Kuo (“an importance level of a PDU set may be relevant when determining PDU-set discarding behavior”). Applicant also argues that Kuo does not disclose “wherein the MAC CE includes an identity (ID) of the DRB.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. This feature is taught in paragraph 62 of Kuo (“In this case, the MAC CE conveying the switch instruction may include: a DRB ID”). Applicant’s remaining arguments are based on similarity and/or dependence to claim 1 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20240275732 A1) in view of Kuo (US 20240284253 A1, wherein all cited portions are supported by provisional application 63/446,282).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses:
“A method performed by a terminal in a communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message, wherein the RRC message includes a first value of a first timer and a second value of a second timer for low importance, for a data radio bearer (DRB)…” ([¶¶ 0098-0099]: “As shown by reference number 610, the receiver may output, and the transmitter may receive, a configuration… The configuration may include radio resource control (RRC) information…The configuration may include a configuration of one or more PDCP discard timers.”; [¶ 0102]: “In some aspects, the PDCP discard timer may correspond to a PDU set parameter of the PDU set, such as a PSIHI or a PDU set importance parameter.”; [¶ 0075]: “The RRC layer may handle communications related to configuring and operating the UE 120, such as…establishment, configuration, maintenance, and release of signaling radio bearers (SRBs) and data radio bearers (DRBs)…”)
“…starting, based on reception of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data unit (SDU) belonging to a low importance PDU set, the second timer associated with the PDCP SDU” ([¶ 0102]: “As shown by reference number 630, the transmitter may start a PDCP discard timer corresponding to the PDU set (e.g., based at least in part on information indicating that the one or more PDCP SDUs carry information belonging to one or more PDUs of the PDU set).”)
“and discarding the PDCP SDU belonging to the low importance PDU set based on an expiration of the second timer associated with the PDCP SDU.” ([¶ 0103]: “In some aspects, the transmitter may not receive one or more PDUs of the PDU set. For example, the PDCP entity of the transmitter may fail to receive one or more PDCP SDUs carrying the one or more PDUs before expiry of a PDCP discard timer corresponding to the PDU set. In this example, the transmitter may discard, upon expiry of the PDCP discard timer, the one or more PDUs (referred to herein as communicating in accordance with the configuration).”; [¶ 0078]: “After the PDCP discard timer expires, the packet may be discarded (e.g., flushed, dropped, deleted from the buffer). In some examples, the PDCP discard timer may be configured per PDCP PDU, such that all data (e.g., packets, PDCP SDUs) of a given PDCP PDU are buffered until a status report indicating successful reception is received or the PDCP discard timer expires for the given PDCP PDU.”)
He does not explicitly disclose “receiving, from the base station, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating an activation of a protocol data unit (PDU) set importance (PSI) based discard for the DRB, wherein the MAC CE includes an identity (ID) of the DRB”
However, Kuo discloses the missing feature “receiving, from the base station, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating an activation of a protocol data unit (PDU) set importance (PSI) based discard for the DRB, wherein the MAC CE includes an identity (ID) of the DRB” ([¶¶ 0058-0059]: “After detecting the switch condition at 316, the network device 302 may transmit a switch instruction to the UE 104 to dynamically switch the state of PDU set discarding behavior the UE 104 applies with respect to a DRB. The switch instruction May cause the UE 104 to switch from operating in a first PDU-set discarding state to a second PDU-set discarding state. For example, the switch instruction may cause the UE 104 to activate PDU set discarding (if previously deactivated) or deactivate PDU set discarding (if previously activated). In some embodiments, the trigger command 320 may be a MAC CE.”; [¶ 0062]: “In this case, the MAC CE conveying the switch instruction may include: a DRB ID and a bitmap describing the PDU Set discarding behavior for each of multiple RLC entities associating with the DRB corresponding to the DRB ID.”) [¶ 0066]: “According to the second aspect, an importance level of a PDU set may be relevant when determining PDU-set discarding behavior. For example, when PDU Set discarding is activated for a DRB, for an important PDU set, the UE 104 does not discard the whole PDU set even if one or more PDUs in the PDU set are determined to be lost.”;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of He and Kuo, to modify the technique as disclosed by He, to be triggered by a MAC CE as disclosed by Kuo. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility, thus allowing for improved optimization and thus enhancing efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine He with Kuo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, He in view of Kuo disclose all the features of the parent claim.
He further discloses “starting, based on reception of a PDCP SDU that does not belong to the low importance PDU set, the first timer associated with the PDCP SDU that does not belong to the low importance PDU set; and discarding the PDCP SDU that does not belong to the low importance PDU set based on an expiration of the first timer.” ([¶ 0103]: “In some aspects, the transmitter may not receive one or more PDUs of the PDU set. For example, the PDCP entity of the transmitter may fail to receive one or more PDCP SDUs carrying the one or more PDUs before expiry of a PDCP discard timer corresponding to the PDU set. In this example, the transmitter may discard, upon expiry of the PDCP discard timer, the one or more PDUs (referred to herein as communicating in accordance with the configuration).”; [¶ 0078]: “After the PDCP discard timer expires, the packet may be discarded (e.g., flushed, dropped, deleted from the buffer). In some examples, the PDCP discard timer may be configured per PDCP PDU, such that all data (e.g., packets, PDCP SDUs) of a given PDCP PDU are buffered until a status report indicating successful reception is received or the PDCP discard timer expires for the given PDCP PDU.”)
Claims 5-6 are substantially similar to claims 1-2 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-2 are from the perspective of the terminal while claims 5-6 are from the perspective of the base station. Thus, claims 5-6 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-2, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 are substantially similar to claims 1-2 and 5-6 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-2 and 5-6 are directed towards a method while claims 9-10 and 13-14 are directed towards apparatuses containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by He in Fig. 2. Thus, claims 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-2 and 5-6, mutatis mutandis.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8, 11-12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20240275732 A1) in view of Kuo (US 20240284253 A1, wherein all cited portions are supported by provisional application 63/446,282) and further in view of Fu (US 20220141146 A1).
Regarding claim 3, He in view of Kuo disclose all the features of the parent claim.
He does not explicitly disclose “transmitting, to the base station, a capability message information indicating that the terminal supports the PSI based discard.”
However, Fu discloses the missing feature “transmitting, to the base station, a capability message including information indicating that the terminal supports the PSI based discard.” ([¶ 0074]: “The base station may determine how to configure the deleting approach of the packet according to capability reporting from the UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of He, Kuo, and Fu to modify the technique as disclosed by He, to have the terminal indicating its discarding capability as disclosed by Fu. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents misconfigurations, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine He with Kuo and Fu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, He in view of Kuo and Fu disclose all the features of the parent claim.
He does not explicitly disclose “wherein the MAC CE includes a data radio bearer (DRB) identity (ID) configured with the PSI based discard, and wherein the second value of the second timer is set to one of a plurality of values including 0.”
However, Kuo discloses the missing feature “wherein the MAC CE includes a data radio bearer (DRB) identity (ID) configured with the PSI based discard,” ([¶ 0060]: “In another embodiment, the MAC CE may convey a switch instruction by including one or more DRB identifiers (IDs).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of He, Kuo, and Fu to modify the technique as disclosed by He, to utilize DRB ID as disclosed by Kuo. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard means of indicating ID, thus improving system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine He with Kuo and Fu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Kuo also does not explicitly disclose “wherein the second value of the second timer is set to one of a plurality of values including 0.”
However, Fu discloses the missing feature “wherein the second value of the second timer is set to one of a plurality of values including 0.” ([¶ 0081]: “The timing duration of the first discard timer may be less than 10 ms (millisecond), for example, 1 ms or 0.5 ms.” Wherein based on the numbers given it is implied it may also be 0 ms.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of He, Kuo, and Fu to modify the timer as disclosed by He, to be 0 as disclosed by Fu. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for instant discards, thus allowing for improved optimization and thus enhanced efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine He with Kuo and Fu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, He in view of Kuo disclose all the features of the parent claim.
He does not explicitly disclose “transmitting, to the base station, a capability message including information indicating that the terminal supports a PDU set based discard.”
However, Fu discloses the missing feature “transmitting, to the base station, a capability message including information indicating that the terminal supports a PDU set based discard.” ([¶ 0074]: “The base station may determine how to configure the deleting approach of the packet according to capability reporting from the UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of He, Kuo, and Fu to modify the technique as disclosed by He, to have the terminal indicating its discarding capability as disclosed by Fu. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents misconfigurations, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine He with Kuo and Fu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 7-8 and 18 are substantially similar to claims 3-4 and 17 with the differences amounting to that claims 3-4 and 17 are from the perspective of the terminal while claims 7-8 and 18 are from the perspective of the base station. Thus, claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 3-4 and 17, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 11-12, 15-16, and 19-20 are substantially similar to claims 3-4, 7-8, and 17-18 with the differences amounting to that claims 3-4, 7-8, and 17-18 are directed towards a method while claims 11-12, 15-16, and 19-20 are directed towards apparatuses containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by He in Fig. 2. Thus, claims 11-12, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 3-4, 7-8, and 17-18, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights