DATA DROP METHOD AND APPARATUS, TERMINAL, AND NETWORK-SIDE DEVICE

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 Amendment This Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on July 20, 2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-15 and 17-23 are now currently pending in the present application. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 8-15 and 17-23 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on July 20, 2026 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0309660 A1, hereinafter Loehr) in view of Sharma et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0227422 A1, hereinafter Sharma). Consider claim 1. Loehr discloses a data drop method, comprising: dropping, by a terminal, first data when a first indication is received and the first data meets a second preset condition (paragraph 41, read as the remote unit 105 removes PDCP PDUs from transmission buffer, where the removal (discarding) of packets may be based on received RLC status reports) or that a first indication is received and the first data meets a second preset condition (paragraph 42, read as the removal/discarding of packets may be based on received PDCP status reports); wherein the first data comprises a first data packet or a first group (paragraphs 41, 42, read as the packets). Loehr discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach the first indication is used to indicate: when the first data meets the second preset condition, the first data is dropped, the second present condition comprises: a preset timer corresponding to the first data expires, and the first data has a priority lower than a preset first threshold. However, Sharma teaches the first indication is used to indicate: when the first data meets the second preset condition, the first data is dropped, the second present condition comprises: a preset timer corresponding to the first data expires, and the first data has a priority lower than a preset first threshold (paragraph 110, read as a PDCP SDU (or a PDCP PDU containing a PDCP SDU) which is determined to have the higher priority (such as the second PDCP SDU 416) has associated with it a discard timer having a longer duration than a discard timer associated with a PDCP SDU not having the higher priority. As such, a PDCP SDU having the higher priority will only be discarded (and therefore not transmitted) if no opportunity for its transmission has arisen within a time period, starting at the time of receipt of the PDCP SDU by the PDCP entity 452, the time period being longer in duration than a corresponding time period associated with a PDCP SDU not having the higher priority. In the example of FIG. 5, therefore, the PDCP entity 452 may, at step S24, assign to the second PDCP PDU 418 a discard timer having a shorter time to expiry than the time to expiry of the discard timer assigned to the first PDCP PDU 416). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sharma into the invention of Loehr in order to provide improved means for prioritizing data units that does not degrade or reduce the reliability of delivery for other data. Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the first indication is used to indicate at least one of the following: second data has been successfully processed; the second data has been processed but the processing failed; the second data has been dropped; the processing of the second data does not require the first data; the processing of the second data is completed based on the first data; no second data is associated with the first data; or when the first data is in a preset scenario, the first data is dropped (Loehr; paragraph 49). Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 3. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the second data comprises a second data packet or a second group, wherein the second data packet comprises at least one of the following: a data packet associated with the first data packet; a data packet associated with a group containing the first data packet; a data packet associated with the first group; or a data packet in a same group as the first data packet; or the second group comprises at least one of the following: a group associated with the first data packet; a group associated with the group containing the first data packet; or a group associated with the first group (Loehr; paragraph 56). Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 3. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the second data comprises a third data packet or a third group; wherein the third data packet is some or all of data packets corresponding to the preset timer; and the third group is some or all of groups corresponding to the preset timer (Loehr; paragraph 56). Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 3. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the processing comprises at least one of the following: sending; receiving; delivering; demodulating; decoding; or displaying (Loehr; paragraph 41). Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 3. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein a start time of the preset timer comprises at least one of the following: a time at which the first data is generated; a time at which the first data delivered from the target layer is received; a time at which transmission of the first data is initialized; a time at which transmission of the first data begins; a time at which the first data meets the second preset condition; a time at which the terminal gives up dropping the first data; a time at which the first data is in a preset scenario; a time at which the second data is successfully transmitted; or a time at which a group containing the second data is successfully transmitted (Loehr; paragraph 56). Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein timing duration of the preset timer is determined based on an air interface transmission delay budget requirement or latency requirement (Loehr; paragraph 56). Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the preset timer stops in a case that the first data is successfully transmitted (Loehr; paragraph 47). Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 3. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the first data or the second data comprises at least one of the following: a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data unit (SDU); a PDCP protocol data unit (PDU); a radio link control (RLC) SDU; a RLC PDU; a media access control (MAC) SDU; a MAC PDU; a physical layer data packet; a radio resource control (RRC) layer data packet; a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer PDU; an SDAP layer SDU; an Internet protocol (IP) data packet; a data packet corresponding to a PDU session; a data packet corresponding to a quality of service (QoS) flow; or a data packet corresponding to a radio bearer (Loehr; paragraph 47). Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the group containing the first data packet comprises at least one of the following: a combination or collection of multiple data packets; a data packet or data packet collection of an upper layer, wherein the upper layer comprises at least one of the following: application layer, IP layer, RRC layer, SDAP layer, PDCP layer, RLC layer, MAC layer, and physical (PHY) layer; a data packet or data packet collection corresponding to a QoS flow; an I frame, IDR frame, or I slice in a service; a P frame or P slice in a service; a B frame or B slice in a service; an Fov frame in a service; a non-Fov frame in a service; a voice data packet or data packet collection in a service; a video or image data packet or data packet collection in a service; data packets or data packet collection of different priorities in a service; a data packet or data packet collection corresponding to a base layer in a service; or a data packet or data packet collection corresponding to an enhancement layer in a service (Loehr; paragraph 57). Consider claim 13. Loehr discloses a data drop method, comprising: sending, by a network-side device, a first indication, wherein the first indication is used for a terminal to determine whether to drop first data when that the first data meets a second preset condition (paragraphs 48, 49, read as the gNB 210 sends an RLC status report indicating the successful transmission of RLC PDUs corresponding to the PDCP data PDUs, and in response to successfully transmitting PDCP data PDUs via one RLC entity, the UE 205 removes corresponding PDCP data PDUs from the buffer of the other RLC entity). Loehr discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach the first indication is used to indicate: when the first data meets the second preset condition, the first data is dropped, the second present condition comprises: a preset timer corresponding to the first data expires, and the first data has a priority lower than a preset first threshold. However, Sharma teaches the first indication is used to indicate: when the first data meets the second preset condition, the first data is dropped, the second present condition comprises: a preset timer corresponding to the first data expires, and the first data has a priority lower than a preset first threshold (paragraph 110, read as a PDCP SDU (or a PDCP PDU containing a PDCP SDU) which is determined to have the higher priority (such as the second PDCP SDU 416) has associated with it a discard timer having a longer duration than a discard timer associated with a PDCP SDU not having the higher priority. As such, a PDCP SDU having the higher priority will only be discarded (and therefore not transmitted) if no opportunity for its transmission has arisen within a time period, starting at the time of receipt of the PDCP SDU by the PDCP entity 452, the time period being longer in duration than a corresponding time period associated with a PDCP SDU not having the higher priority. In the example of FIG. 5, therefore, the PDCP entity 452 may, at step S24, assign to the second PDCP PDU 418 a discard timer having a shorter time to expiry than the time to expiry of the discard timer assigned to the first PDCP PDU 416). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sharma into the invention of Loehr in order to provide improved means for prioritizing data units that does not degrade or reduce the reliability of delivery for other data. Consider claim 14 and as applied to claim 13. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the first indication is used to indicate at least one of the following: second data has been successfully processed; the second data has been processed but the processing failed; the second data has been dropped; the processing of the second data does not require the first data; the processing of the second data is completed based on the first data; no second data is associated with the first data; or when the first data is in a preset scenario, the first data is dropped (Loehr; paragraph 49). Consider claim 15. Loehr discloses a terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the program or instructions, when executed by the processor (fig. 3, paragraphs 52, 54, read as the user equipment apparatus 300 includes a processor 305, a memory 310, where the processor 305 includes a controller capable of executing computer-readable instructions and/or capable of performing logical operations), causes the terminal to perform: dropping first data when a first indication is received and the first data meets a second preset condition (paragraph 41, read as the remote unit 105 removes PDCP PDUs from transmission buffer, where the removal (discarding) of packets may be based on received RLC status reports) or that a first indication is received and the first data meets a second preset condition (paragraph 42, read as the removal/discarding of packets may be based on received PDCP status reports); wherein the first data comprises a first data packet or a first group (paragraphs 41, 42, read as the packets). Loehr discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach the first indication is used to indicate: when the first data meets the second preset condition, the first data is dropped, the second present condition comprises: a preset timer corresponding to the first data expires, and the first data has a priority lower than a preset first threshold. However, Sharma teaches the first indication is used to indicate: when the first data meets the second preset condition, the first data is dropped, the second present condition comprises: a preset timer corresponding to the first data expires, and the first data has a priority lower than a preset first threshold (paragraph 110, read as a PDCP SDU (or a PDCP PDU containing a PDCP SDU) which is determined to have the higher priority (such as the second PDCP SDU 416) has associated with it a discard timer having a longer duration than a discard timer associated with a PDCP SDU not having the higher priority. As such, a PDCP SDU having the higher priority will only be discarded (and therefore not transmitted) if no opportunity for its transmission has arisen within a time period, starting at the time of receipt of the PDCP SDU by the PDCP entity 452, the time period being longer in duration than a corresponding time period associated with a PDCP SDU not having the higher priority. In the example of FIG. 5, therefore, the PDCP entity 452 may, at step S24, assign to the second PDCP PDU 418 a discard timer having a shorter time to expiry than the time to expiry of the discard timer assigned to the first PDCP PDU 416). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sharma into the invention of Loehr in order to provide improved means for prioritizing data units that does not degrade or reduce the reliability of delivery for other data. Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 15. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses wherein the first indication is used further to indicate at least one of the following: second data has been successfully processed; the second data has been processed but the processing failed; the second data has been dropped; the processing of the second data does not require the first data; the processing of the second data is completed based on the first data; no second data is associated with the first data; or in a case that the first data is in a preset scenario and/or meets the second preset condition, the first data is dropped (Loehr; paragraph 49). Consider claim 18. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses a network-side device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the program or instructions are executed by the processor (Loehr; fig. 4, paragraphs 71, 73, read as the network equipment apparatus 400 includes a processor 405, a memory 410, where the network equipment apparatus 400 includes a controller capable of executing computer-readable instructions and/or capable of performing logical operations) the steps of the data drop method according to claim 13 are implemented (Loehr; paragraphs 48, 49, read as the gNB 210 sends an RLC status report indicating the successful transmission of RLC PDUs corresponding to the PDCP data PDUs, and in response to successfully transmitting PDCP data PDUs via one RLC entity, the UE 205 removes corresponding PDCP data PDUs from the buffer of the other RLC entity). Consider claim 19. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory readable storage medium stores a program or instructions, and when the program or instructions are executed by the processor (Loehr; fig. 3, paragraph 52, 54, 66, read as memory 310 is a computer readable storage medium, where a processor 305 includes a controller capable of executing computer-readable instructions and/or capable of performing logical operations the steps of the data drop method according to claim 1 are implemented (Loehr; paragraphs 41, 42, read as the remote unit 105 removes PDCP PDUs from transmission buffer, where the removal (discarding) of packets may be based on received RLC status reports. In addition, Loehr teaches the removal/discarding of packets may be based on received PDCP status reports and where data are packets). Consider claim 20. The combination of Loehr and Sharma discloses a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory readable storage medium stores a program or instructions, and when the program or instructions are executed by the processor (Loehr; fig. 4, paragraphs 71, 73, 78, read as memory 410 is a computer readable storage medium, where a processor 405 includes a controller capable of executing computer-readable instructions and/or capable of performing logical operations, the steps of the data drop method according to claim 13 are implemented (Loehr; paragraphs 48, 49, read as the gNB 210 sends an RLC status report indicating the successful transmission of RLC PDUs corresponding to the PDCP data PDUs, and in response to successfully transmitting PDCP data PDUs via one RLC entity, the UE 205 removes corresponding PDCP data PDUs from the buffer of the other RLC entity). Consider claim 21 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Loehr and Sharma disclose wherein when no first indication is received, the first data is not dropped even if the first data meets the second preset condition, and when the first data does not meet the second preset condition, the first data is not dropped even if the first indication is received (Sharma; paragraph 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sharma into the invention of Loehr in order to provide improved means for prioritizing data units that does not degrade or reduce the reliability of delivery for other data. Consider claim 22 and as applied to claim 13. The combination of Loehr and Sharma disclose wherein when no first indication is received, the first data is not dropped even if the first data meets the second preset condition, and when the first data does not meet the second preset condition, the first data is not dropped even if the first indication is received (Sharma; paragraph 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sharma into the invention of Loehr in order to provide improved means for prioritizing data units that does not degrade or reduce the reliability of delivery for other data. Consider claim 23 and as applied to claim 15. The combination of Loehr and Sharma disclose wherein when no first indication is received, the first data is not dropped even if the first data meets the second preset condition, and when the first data does not meet the second preset condition, the first data is not dropped even if the first indication is received (Sharma; paragraph 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sharma into the invention of Loehr in order to provide improved means for prioritizing data units that does not degrade or reduce the reliability of delivery for other data. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JIA et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0022262 A1) discloses if there is no UL grant available for transmitting message 3 and the contention resolution timer expires or a first timer expires, the terminal equipment discards the TC-RNTI, considers that the contention resolution is unsuccessful, and discards the MAC PDU that is successfully decoded. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to: Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Hand-delivered responses should be brought to Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M Brandt whose telephone number is (571) 270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00. 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, Anthony Addy can be reached on (571) 272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. /CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 October 9, 2026