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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15, and 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection under 103 based on Stojanovski et al. (US 2021/0127351 A1) in view of new references Jonsson et al. (WO 2019/193154 A1) and Xu et al. (US 2024/0163674 A1).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovski et al. (US 2021/0127351 A1) (cited in IDS 04/24/2024) in view of Jonsson et al. (WO 2019/193154 A1) and Xu et al. (US 2024/0163674 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Stojanovski discloses A method for wireless communication and A communication apparatus, comprising:
transmitting or receiving, by a base station, a data packet with a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session information frame ([0029]: The DL PDU Session Information frame format (PDU Type 0) is defined to allow the NG-RAN to receive some control information elements), wherein:
the PDU session information frame includes a time stamp field and an indicator (table 5.5.2.1-1b: DL sending time stamp and information elements), and
the indicator includes a PDU type field (table 5.5.2.1-1b, [0043]: the information elements include a PDU Type field),
Stojanovski does not disclose, but Jonsson discloses the PDU type field indicating a (Fig. 4, pg. 8 sections 5 and 7: timestamp information is conveyed by means of a data packet frame structure (type of frame) comprising a field for time information, see Timestamp information field in Fig. 4. Pg. 11 sections 2 and 5-6: other PDU type values and subfields may be used to convey timestamp, or a new PDU type may contain timestamp. Pg. 12 sections 2-3 and 5: timestamp information may be included in PDU type 0 or PDU type 1 or PDU type 2. Pg. 13 section 5-7: PDU type indicates structure of the NR user plane and may be type 0 for DL user data, type 1 for DL data delivery status, type 2 for latency information, or any types 3-15 that are reserved for future PDU type extensions); and
scheduling, by the base station, subsequent data packets based on the time stamp field in the PDU session information frame (pg. 11 section 6 – pg. 12 section 1: the timestamp is set for the transmission of UL/DL PDUs by the DU / CU. Fig. 4, pg. 8 sections 5 and 7: timestamp information is conveyed by means of a data packet frame structure (type of frame) comprising a field for time information, see Timestamp information field in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PDU Type field, as taught by Stojanovski, to include timestamp information and indicate the structure of the NR user plane and be of type 0 for DL user data, 1 for DL data delivery status, 2 for latency information, or 3-15 that are reserved for future PDU type extensions, as taught by Jonsson.
Doing so allows the receiving node to not only calculate the radio link delay but also the end to end packet delay (Jonsson: pg. 10 section 9) and that the timestamp information can be conveyed in any data field as recognizable by a person skilled in the art (Jonsson: pg. 11 section 3).
Stojanovski in view of Jonsson does not disclose, but Xu discloses the PDU type field indicating a service type associated with the data packet ([0112]: the PDU type field in the PDU indicates a service type of the user plane control PDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PDU Type field, as taught by Stojanovski, to include timestamp information and indicate the structure of the NR user plane and be of type 0 for DL user data, 1 for DL data delivery status, 2 for latency information, or 3-15 that are reserved for future PDU type extensions, as taught by Jonsson, and further indicate the service type, as taught by Xu.
Doing so allows the MAC layer to determine the type parameter (service type) to perform security processing (Xu: [0112]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Stojanovski in view of Jonsson and Xu discloses all features of claims 1 and 11 as outlined above.
Stojanovski discloses wherein the PDU session information frame includes at least one of: (1) a first indicator indicating an initial data packet for a same application message that includes multiple data packets, (2) a second indicator indicating a last data packet for the same application message that includes the multiple data packets, (3) a third indicator indicating a number of the multiple data packets for the same application message, (4) a sequence number indicating a current data packet of the multiple data packets for the same application message (table 5.5.2.1-1b, [0056]: the DL PDU session information frame includes a DL QFI Sequence Number parameter indicating the sequence number as assigned by the UPF/NG-RAN node associated with a given QoS Flow), or (5) a sequence number distinguishing different application messages.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Stojanovski discloses A method for wireless communication and A communication apparatus, comprising transceiver electronics configured to:
receiving or transmitting, by a user equipment, a data packet with a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session information frame ([0029]: The DL PDU Session Information frame format (PDU Type 0) is defined to allow the NG-RAN to receive some control information elements. [0040]: If the Paging Cause was include in the CN tunnel header of an incoming DL PDU the NG-RAN forwards the Paging Cause to the UE for the case the UE needs to be paged when in RRC Inactive state), wherein:
the PDU session information frame includes a time stamp field and an indicator (table 5.5.2.1-1b: DL sending time stamp and information elements), and
the indicator includes a PDU type field (table 5.5.2.1-1b, [0043]: the information elements include a PDU Type field),
Stojanovski does not disclose, but Jonsson discloses the PDU type field indicating a (Fig. 4, pg. 8 sections 5 and 7: timestamp information is conveyed by means of a data packet frame structure (type of frame) comprising a field for time information, see Timestamp information field in Fig. 4. Pg. 11 sections 2 and 5-6: other PDU type values and subfields may be used to convey timestamp, or a new PDU type may contain timestamp. Pg. 12 sections 2-3 and 5: timestamp information may be included in PDU type 0 or PDU type 1 or PDU type 2. Pg. 13 section 5-7: PDU type indicates structure of the NR user plane and may be type 0 for DL user data, type 1 for DL data delivery status, type 2 for latency information, or any types 3-15 that are reserved for future PDU type extensions); and
performing, by the user equipment, subsequent transmission or reception of data packets based on scheduling of the subsequent data packets using the time stamp field in the PDU session information frame (pg. 11 section 6 – pg. 12 section 1: the timestamp is set for the transmission of UL/DL PDUs by the DU / CU. Fig. 4, pg. 8 sections 5 and 7: timestamp information is conveyed by means of a data packet frame structure (type of frame) comprising a field for time information, see Timestamp information field in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PDU Type field, as taught by Stojanovski, to include timestamp information and indicate the structure of the NR user plane and be of type 0 for DL user data, 1 for DL data delivery status, 2 for latency information, or 3-15 that are reserved for future PDU type extensions, as taught by Jonsson.
Doing so allows the receiving node to not only calculate the radio link delay but also the end to end packet delay (Jonsson: pg. 10 section 9) and that the timestamp information can be conveyed in any data field as recognizable by a person skilled in the art (Jonsson: pg. 11 section 3).
Stojanovski in view of Jonsson does not disclose, but Xu discloses the PDU type field indicating a service type associated with the data packet ([0112]: the PDU type field in the PDU indicates a service type of the user plane control PDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PDU Type field, as taught by Stojanovski, to include timestamp information and indicate the structure of the NR user plane and be of type 0 for DL user data, 1 for DL data delivery status, 2 for latency information, or 3-15 that are reserved for future PDU type extensions, as taught by Jonsson, and further indicate the service type, as taught by Xu.
Doing so allows the MAC layer to determine the type parameter (service type) to perform security processing (Xu: [0112]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Stojanovski in view of Jonsson and Xu discloses all features of claims 6 and 17 as outlined above.
Stojanovski discloses wherein the PDU session information frame includes at least one of: (1) a first indicator indicating an initial data packet for a same application message that includes multiple data packets, (2) a second indicator indicating a last data packet for the same application message that includes the multiple data packets, (3) a third indicator indicating a number of the multiple data packets for the same application message, (4) a sequence number indicating a current data packet of the multiple data packets for the same application message (table 5.5.2.1-1b, [0056]: the DL PDU session information frame includes a DL QFI Sequence Number parameter indicating the sequence number as assigned by the UPF/NG-RAN node associated with a given QoS Flow), or (5) a sequence number distinguishing different application messages.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovski et al. (US 2021/0127351 A1) (cited in IDS 04/24/2024) in view of Jonsson et al. (WO 2019/193154 A1), Xu et al. (US 2024/0163674 A1), and Park et al. (US 2021/0100061 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Stojanovski in view of Jonsson and Xu discloses all features of claim 1 and 11 as outlined above.
Stojanovski does not disclose, but Park discloses receiving, by the base station, predefined Quality of Service (QoS) configuration for the service type in a PDU session establishment request or a PDU session modification request from a network node ([0260]: the QoS flow level QoS parameters of the PDU session resource setup/modify request transfer (e.g., the message from the SMF to the first base station) may comprise the first QoS information of the first session and/or the second QoS information of the first session. The first QoS information may comprise QoS configuration parameters of uplink packets of the first session and QoS configuration parameters of downlink packets of the first session).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the NG-RAN, as taught by Stojanovski, to receive QoS flow level QoS parameters of the PDU session resource modify request transfer that comprises first QoS information including QoS configuration parameters, as taught by Park.
Doing so allows the first base station to provide the QoS requirement information of a first session and/or of a service associated with the first session where the QoS requirement information of the service may indicate that the one of the uplink or downlink packets of the first session need at least one of: an ultra-reliable transmission and/or a low-latency transmission (Park: [0228]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Stojanovski in view of Jonsson and Xu discloses all features of claims 6 and 17 as outlined above.
Stojanovski discloses receiving, by the user equipment, predefined Quality of Service (QoS) configuration for the service type in a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message from a network node ([0260]: the QoS flow level QoS parameters of the PDU session resource setup/modify request transfer (e.g., the message from the SMF to the first base station) may comprise the first QoS information of the first session and/or the second QoS information of the first session. The first QoS information may comprise QoS configuration parameters of uplink packets of the first session and QoS configuration parameters of downlink packets of the first session).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the UE, as taught by Stojanovski, to transmit QoS flow level QoS parameters of the PDU session resource modify request transfer that comprises first QoS information including QoS configuration parameters, as taught by Park.
Doing so allows the first base station to provide the QoS requirement information of a first session and/or of a service associated with the first session where the QoS requirement information of the service may indicate that the one of the uplink or downlink packets of the first session need at least one of: an ultra-reliable transmission and/or a low-latency transmission (Park: [0228]).
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanovski et al. (US 2021/0127351 A1) (cited in IDS 04/24/2024) in view of Jonsson et al. (WO 2019/193154 A1), Xu et al. (US 2024/0163674 A1), and Min et al. (US 2020/0288432 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Stojanovski in view of Jonsson and Xu discloses all features of claims 1 and 11 as outlined above.
Stojanovski does not disclose, but Min discloses wherein the scheduling comprises:
receiving, by the base station, assistance information from a user equipment, wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of (1) a first delay budget for data packets at a service level, (2) a second delay budget for each data packet, (3) a third delay budget for data packets at the base station, (4) an error rate for the data packets, (5) an estimated arrival time of a subsequent data packet, (6) a data size of the subsequent data packet, or (7) a current service type (for (2) or (3): [0164]: the base station may configure transmission parameters reflecting … the packet delay budget ... using a “UEAssistanceInformation” message of the terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the NG-RAN, as taught by Stojanovski, to receive UEAssistanceInformation from terminal with packet delay budget information for the base station, as taught by Min.
Doing so allows the base station to configure transmission parameters to be used in sidelink transmission in the shared resource pool (Min: [0163]-[0164]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Stojanovski in view of Jonsson and Xu discloses all features of claims 6 and 17 as outlined above.
Stojanovski discloses transmitting, by the user equipment, assistance information to a base station, wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of (1) a first delay budge for data packets at a service level, (2) a second delay budget for each data packet, (3) a third delay budget for data packets at the base station, (4) an error rate for the data packets, (5) an estimated arrival time of a subsequent data packet, (6) a data size of the subsequent data packet, or (7) a current service type (for (2) or (3): [0164]: the base station may configure transmission parameters reflecting … the packet delay budget ... using a “UEAssistanceInformation” message of the terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the UE, as taught by Stojanovski, to transmit UEAssistanceInformation from terminal with packet delay budget information for the base station, as taught by Min.
Doing so allows the base station to configure transmission parameters to be used in sidelink transmission in the shared resource pool (Min: [0163]-[0164]).
Conclusion
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-4pm.
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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. 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.
/THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights