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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-7 and 13-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 13 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo(US 2024/0380705 A1) in view of Ki et al(US 2011/0164560 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 19, Jo ‘705 teaches, a terminal( [0094]-[0097] and Figs. 2-3 wireless device 100/200), comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or an instruction that is stored in the memory and that can be run on the processor, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the terminal to perform( [0094]-[0097] and Figs. 2-3 wireless device 100/200 comprising processor and memory for storing instructions):
when a first timer expires, discarding a first data group([0207], [0210]. [0211] and Fig 11, when a PDCP SDU’s discardTimer expires, discarding all PDCP SDU’s and all PDCP PDUs associated with the frame), wherein the first data group is a data group comprising a first data packet( [0207], [0208], [0210] and Figs. 6, 11, Jo ‘705 groups SDUs 1-5 into the first fame and associates each SDU with its corresponding PDCP PDU. The frame associated PDU set discarded includes the PDU corresponding to SDU 1(first packet)),the first timer is a timer associated with the first data packet([0203], [0207], [0208] and Figs. 6, 11, starting the discardTimer for the PDCP SDU associates the PDCP SDU with its corresponding PDCP PDU and discarding the PDCP PDU upon timer expiration). Jo ‘705 implicitly teaches, wherein the first data packet comprises; a radio link control service data unit (RLC SDU)([0114], [0184], [0216] and fig. 6, as shown in fig. 6 a PDCP PDU serving as the RLC SDU at the RLC layer, which suggests that PDCP PDU is the same as RLC SDU).
Jo ‘705 does not explicitly teach, wherein the first data packet comprises; a radio link control service data unit (RLC SDU).
Ki ‘560 teaches, wherein the first data packet comprises; a radio link control service data unit (RLC SDU)([0021], [0083], [0084] and Fig. 10, a UE starts Timer_Discard upon receipt of the RLC SDU, and discards the RLC SDU when the timer expires).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Jo ‘705, by incorporating the teaching of Ki ‘560, since such modification provides a method for processing a PDU in such a manner that radio resources are efficiently used and a time delay is prevented, as suggested by Ki ‘560([0026]).
Regarding claims 4 and 23, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, wherein the first timer corresponds to one data packet([0184] and claim 15, the discard time is configured to start per PDCP SDU), or associated data packets in a same data group share first target information of one first timer([0006], [0190], [0207] and Fig.11, the discard timer is may be configured per fame and the frame level discard means the device discards all PDCP SDUs associated with the a frame if the timer for one SDU in that frame expires), or associated data packets in different data groups share first target information of one first timer (notice, the claim limitations are written in alternative form thus examiner is required to show only one of the alternative claim limitations).
Regarding claims 5 and 24, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, wherein start time of the first timer is determined based on at least one of: generation time of a first target data packet; time at which a first target data packet submitted by an upper layer is received([0004], [0184] and claim 13, a discard time id started when receiving the first data unit(SDU) from an upper layer); time of initial transmission of the first target data packet; or transmission start time of the first target data packet; wherein the first target data packet comprises the first data packet([0184], starting the timer for the first data unit (SDU) received by the PDCP entity, and identifying the triggering packet as the indication for the start of the frame or the start SDU of the set(data group)).
Regarding claims 6 and 25, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, wherein a stopping condition of the first timer comprises at least one of the following: a second timer is enabled, wherein the second timer is a timer used to control discarding of the first data packet or the first data packet fails to be transmitted([0011], [0186], [0207], when at least one data unit (SDU) is not successfully transmitted the terminal discards all associated SDUs in the frame and stopes the discard timer for all discarded PDCP SDUs, notice, the claim limitations are written in alternative form thus examiner is required to show only one of the alternative claim limitations).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, wherein an expiration moment of the first timer is determined based on at least one of the following: timer duration configured by a network side;
an expiration moment of a second target data packet ([0207], [0211] and Fig. 11, the frame level discard (the group discard event) occurs when the discard timer for a PDCP SDU associated with a frame expires, which indicates that the group’s expiration is determined by the packets expiration); a moment at which the second target data packet is successfully transmitted or processed; or a moment at which the second target data packet is submitted to a lower layer or an upper layer; wherein the second target data packet comprises the first data packet([0210], [0211] and Fig. 11, suing SDU1 as the trigger for the first frame. As shown in fig SDU1 is labeled as the packet whose timer expiration triggers the discard of the group).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, wherein the first target information comprises at least one of the following: start time([0004] , [0184] and claim 13, a discard timer is started when a first data unite associated with the frame is received ); end or expiration time([0004], [0207], [0211] and Fig. 11, the expiration of the discard timer causing a discarded); or timer duration([0204], [0205], the time duration of the discard time can be configured from the upper layer(e.g. 20ms, 100ms).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, a chip, comprising a processor and a communication interface( [0087]-[0089] and Figs. 2-3, CPUs comprising integrated circuits), wherein the communication interface is coupled to the processor, and the processor is configured to run a program or an instruction( [0087]-[0089], [0094]-[0097] and Figs. 2-3 wireless device 100/200 comprising processor and memory for storing instructions), to implement the steps of the data processing method according to claim (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, when the first timer expires, further discarding, by the terminal, at least one of a second data packet, or a data group in which the second data packet is located([0189], [0190], [0207] and Figs. 11-12, a frame level discard operation where the expiration of a discard timer for one data unit (PDCP SDU) triggers the terminal to discard all other data units associated with that frame. Thus, when the first timer expires, the terminal further discards secondary data packets located in the same data group),wherein the second data packet comprises at least one of: at least one data packet associated with the first data packet or the first data group; at least one data packet in a second data group, wherein the second data group is associated with the first data group or the first data packet([0185], [0188], [0211] and Fig. 11, a single frame comprises multiple associated data packets, the additionally discarded packets are directly associated with the firs data packet through their shared frame for example Jo ‘705 teaches that when the timer for PDCP SDU 1 expires , PDCP SDU 2-5 are also discarded because they are associated with the same first frame).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo 6‘705 further teaches, wherein an expiration moment of the first timer is determined based on at least one of the following: timer duration configured by a network side; an expiration moment of a second target data packet; a moment at which the second target data packet is successfully transmitted or processed; or a moment at which the second target data packet is submitted to a lower layer or an upper layer; wherein the second target data packet comprises the first data packet([0189], [0212] and Fig. 12, a scenario where multiple SDUs have their own timers , the expiration of a timer for one SDU in the set( the second packet) triggers the discard of the entire group and associated timer, [0103, [0204], [0205] also teaches the duration of the discardTimer being configured from upper layer by NG-RAN).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kang et al(WO 2022/075912 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, wherein the first one of data packets and/or the last data packet in a same data group meet any one of the following: indicated by an upper layer ([0192], claim 23, 24, receiving from an upper layer, information identifying at least one of a start of the set and end of the set).
The combination of Jo ‘705 and Ki ‘560 does not explicitly teach, configured by a network device or determined based on second target information.
Kang ‘912 teaches, configured by a network device (page 14 lines 17-21, the core network provides a sequence number for packets to identify all packets associated with one application PDU); or determined based on second target information (page 14 lines 22-26, inspecting packet headers (target information) to extract segmentation information to determine the specific order of packets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Jo ‘705 by incorporating the teaching of Kang ‘912, since such modification would provide techniques for ensuring a timely delivery by a wireless network of data packets generated by latency-sensitive applications such as extended reality (XR) and cloud gaming, as suggested by Kang ‘912(page 1, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jo ‘705, Ki ‘560 and Kang ‘912 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, wherein the second target information comprises boundary information corresponding to a data group([0192] and claim 23, receiving from an upper layer, information identifying a start and end of the set(data group)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jo ‘705, Ki ‘560 and Kang ‘912 teaches all the claim limitations, Jo ‘705 further teaches, wherein the upper layer comprises at least one of the following: an application layer; an Internet protocol (IP) layer ([0005], [0197], the upper layer may be a layer higher than the PDCP layer which may include the IP layer);
a radio resource control (RRC) layer;
a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer ([0005], the upper layer may be a layer higher than the PDCP layer which may include SDAP layer);
a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer ([0005], [0184], [0218], the PDCP entity and PDCP SDU as the objects of the timer and discard operation);
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jo ‘705, Ki ‘560 and Kang ‘912 teaches all the claim limitations, Kang ‘912 further teaches, wherein the network device comprises at least one of the following: a base station device( page 9 lines 4-9, Fig. 1, 2, a radio access nodes handling the grouped packets as base station); a core network device(page 9 lines 12-16, page 14 lines 17-20 and Fig. 2, the sequence number used for grouping the packets are configured by the core network); a server device; or a data source device( Notice, the claim limitation is written in alternative form thus examiner is required to show only one of the alternative claim limitations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Jo ‘705 by incorporating the teaching of Kang ‘912, since such modification would provide techniques for ensuring a timely delivery by a wireless network of data packets generated by latency-sensitive applications such as extended reality (XR) and cloud gaming, as suggested by Kang ‘912(page 1, lines 3-5).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights