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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “…to retransmit the one or more RLC communications…” should be changed to “…to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 12-14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al. US 20040013114.
Regarding claim 1, An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless communication device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (radio network controller, Figure 4), configured to cause the wireless communication device to: transmit one or more radio link control (RLC) communications (RLC, Figure 4, element 401, RLC layer, Figure 2, element 200, comprises a transmission unit, element 202 and reception unit, element 210, the path of a packet can be traced through the RLC layer, upper layer(s) send upper layer frames to the transmission unit which is adapted to process such frames, segmenting unit segments and/or concatenates them into packets, an RLC header unit adds an RLC header to each packet which are then placed in the memory unit to wait for transmission, para. 0010-0011); and retransmit one or more unacknowledged RLC communications, of the one or more RLC communications, based at least in part on a first priority of the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications that is lower than a second priority of one or more untransmitted communications (if outstanding, unacknowledged packets are a part of the same upper layer frame as negatively acknowledged packets, the status of each unacknowledged packet is updated to a negatively acknowledged status and previously transmitted packets are placed at the top of a priority stack so they can be transmitted during the next TTI prior to the initial transmission of additional packets, such that additional packets are delayed until all the negatively acknowledged previously transmitted packets are retransmitted and there are no additional status reports, para. 0038).
Regarding claim 4, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications, are configured to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications in accordance with an RLC communication retransmission configuration (if outstanding, unacknowledged packets are a part of the same upper layer frame as negatively acknowledged packets, the status of each unacknowledged packet is updated to a negatively acknowledged status and previously transmitted packets are placed at the top of a priority stack so they can be transmitted during the next TTI prior to the initial transmission of additional packets, such that additional packets are delayed until all the negatively acknowledged previously transmitted packets are retransmitted and there are no additional status reports, para. 0038).
Regarding claim 13, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications, are configured to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications based at least in part on the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications being one or more unacknowledged RLC control communications associated with one or more hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmissions, one or more prohibit timer statuses, one or more configured values associated with the one or more prohibit timer statuses, a downlink latency, or one or more traffic characterizations (if outstanding, unacknowledged packets are a part of the same upper layer frame as negatively acknowledged packets, the status of each unacknowledged packet is updated to a negatively acknowledged status and previously transmitted packets are placed at the top of a priority stack so they can be transmitted during the next TTI prior to the initial transmission of additional packets, such that additional packets are delayed until all the negatively acknowledged previously transmitted packets are retransmitted and there are no additional status reports, para. 0038).
Claims 10, 12, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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) 2, 5, 15, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Jiang et al. US 20070071008.
Regarding claim 2, The apparatus of claim 1, Su discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications. Su does not disclose responsive to expiration of a configured time window. Jiang discloses initializing a storage window of a receiver in a wireless communications system operating in Unacknowledged Mode and periodically retransmitting previously transmitted packets comprises after a receiving entity of the receiver has been established, re-established, or a timer of the receiver has expired, para. 0017, after a receiving entity of a receiver has been established, re-established, or a timer of the receiver has expired, and the receiver receives a first PDU, the receiver initializes the variable according to the sequence number of the first PDU, para. 0041. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su to include Jiang’s receiver window and receiver timer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to avoid unnecessary deletion of PDUs and increase efficiency when reassembling SDUs, para. 0041.
Regarding claim 5, The apparatus of claim 1, Su discloses wherein the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications but does not explicitly disclose one or more unacknowledged RLC protocol data units (PDUs). Jiang discloses initializing a storage window of a receiver in a wireless communications system operating in Unacknowledged Mode and periodically retransmitting previously transmitted packets comprises after a receiving entity of the receiver has been established, re-established, or a timer of the receiver has expired, para. 0017, after a receiving entity of a receiver has been established, re-established, or a timer of the receiver has expired, and the receiver receives a first PDU, the receiver initializes the variable according to the sequence number of the first PDU, para. 0041. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su to include Jiang’s receiver window and receiver timer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to avoid unnecessary deletion of PDUs and increase efficiency when reassembling SDUs, para. 0041.
Claims 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Dev et al. US 20190334663.
Regarding claim 3, The apparatus of claim 1, Su discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more RLC communications, but does not disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more RLC communications in accordance with a configured maximum RLC communication quantity threshold. Dev discloses a mobile device has attempted four transmissions to the base station during a HARQ procedure and since the maximum HARQ retransmission threshold has been reached, the HARQ procedure will not perform another retransmission of the uplink transmission and where the mobile device is configured to operate in a Radio Link Control (RLC) Unacknowledged Mode (UM), the mobile device can be configured to store data to be retransmitted using the same RLC sequence number and a new uplink grant, para. 0042. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su to include Dev’s HARQ procedure and maximum threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to prioritize lost data over other data and retransmit the lost data with the same RLC sequence number (SN) using a new uplink grant, Abstract.
Regarding claim 6, The apparatus of claim 1, Su discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications, but does not disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications using one or more uplink resources associated with a grant. Dev discloses a mobile device has attempted four transmissions to the base station during a HARQ procedure and since the maximum HARQ retransmission threshold has been reached, the HARQ procedure will not perform another retransmission of the uplink transmission and where the mobile device is configured to operate in a Radio Link Control (RLC) Unacknowledged Mode (UM), the mobile device can be configured to store data to be retransmitted using the same RLC sequence number and a new uplink grant, para. 0042. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su to include Dev’s HARQ procedure and maximum threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to prioritize lost data over other data and retransmit the lost data with the same RLC sequence number (SN) using a new uplink grant, Abstract.
Regarding claim 9, The apparatus of claim 8, Su discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications, but does not disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications based at least in part on a configured HARQ retransmission quantity threshold. Dev discloses a mobile device has attempted four transmissions to the base station during a HARQ procedure and since the maximum HARQ retransmission threshold has been reached, the HARQ procedure will not perform another retransmission of the uplink transmission and where the mobile device is configured to operate in a Radio Link Control (RLC) Unacknowledged Mode (UM), the mobile device can be configured to store data to be retransmitted using the same RLC sequence number and a new uplink grant, para. 0042. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su to include Dev’s HARQ procedure and maximum threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to prioritize lost data over other data and retransmit the lost data with the same RLC sequence number (SN) using a new uplink grant, Abstract.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Liu US 20220191951,
Regarding claim 7, The apparatus of claim 1, Su does not disclose wherein the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications are not reported in a buffer status report (BSR). Liu discloses the RLC layer performs data transmission in an unacknowledged mode (UM), a sender sends the data packet to the receiver through the radio bearer established with the receiver, and the receiver does not need to feed back the information to the sender whereas in the acknowledged mode, the sender sends the data packet to the receiver through the radio bearer established with the receiver, and the receiver needs to return to the sender an RLC status report on whether the data packet is received successfully, para. 0035. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su to include Liu’s unacknowledged mode where the receiver does not return an RLC status report. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so so confusion and errors in the data receiving can be avoided, the accuracy of the data transmission between the user equipment through the radio bearer can be ensured, para. 0051.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Kim et al. US 20200322843.
Regarding claim 8, The apparatus of claim 1, Su discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications, but does not disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to retransmit the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications based at least in part on the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications being in an RLC transmit window and associated with one or more hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmission requests.
Dev discloses a mobile device has attempted four transmissions to the base station during a HARQ procedure and since the maximum HARQ retransmission threshold has been reached, the HARQ procedure will not perform another retransmission of the uplink transmission and where the mobile device is configured to operate in a Radio Link Control (RLC) Unacknowledged Mode (UM), the mobile device can be configured to store data to be retransmitted using the same RLC sequence number and a new uplink grant, para. 0042. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su to include Dev’s HARQ procedure and maximum threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to prioritize lost data over other data and retransmit the lost data with the same RLC sequence number (SN) using a new uplink grant, Abstract.
Su and Dev do not disclose an RLC transmit window. Kim discloses an RLC unacknowledged mode transmitting and receiving window operation method, para. 0007. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su and Dev to include Kim’s transmitting window operation for RLC unacknowledged mode. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for reducing overhead and unnecessary processing of a UE, para. 0007.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Binzel et al. US 20080056218.
Regarding claim 11, The apparatus of claim 1, Su does not disclose wherein the one or more unacknowledged RLC communications are associated with incrementation of a retransmission counter. Binzel discloses if the retransmission counter has not elapsed, the base station resends unacknowledged frames, if the counter has elapsed, the process ends without the base station receiving any feedback that the mobile station has successfully received the frame. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Su to include a retransmission a counter for unacknowledged frames as in Binzel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to improve signaling conditions, para. 0004.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468