DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on December 1st 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 12/1/25, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, pg. 8-11, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the rejection is in error for several reasons. First, applicant suggests that Brunello does not disclose the system architecture recited by claim 1. To support this, applicant points to the “split architecture” described by the preamble which recites several features including the first and second layers, wherein the second layer is lower than the first layer. This is not persuasive because limitations recited by the preamble are typically not given patentable weight when reciting purpose or intended use. See MPEP 2111.02 which states that a preamble is generally not limiting when the claim body describes a complete invention. In this case, the “layers” are notably not recited in the body of the claim are not deemed necessary to give life to the claim because the body describes a complete invention (e.g. removing the preamble would not render the claim indefinite). For at least these reasons, any argument relying on limitations recited solely in the preamble, is not persuasive. Examiner suggests amending the claim to positively recite these features if applicant intends to rely on these features to distinguish over the cited art.
Second, applicant argues Brunello does not disclose an indication of a proportion of packets. Applicant discuses the layers taught by Brunello and states that even though PMark can be understood as a proportion of packets to mark, this is signaled to the PDCP layer which is different than what is claimed because the claims require the indication to be sent from the second (lower layer) to the first (higher) layer. This is not persuasive for the same reasons given above. The BRI of the claims does not require the first/second layers recited by the preamble and thus does not require the indication to be sent from a “lower” layer to a “higher” layer.
Third, applicant argues the indication is not included in assistance information PDU (pg. 10). Examiner appreciates the acknowledgement that marking with congestion indicators via ECN is well known. But again, applicant states the claim requires the indication to be sent from the second network node “containing the lower layers” to the first network node “containing the higher layers” and that nothing in Brunello suggests the probability pMark is sent from one layer to another (despite Brunello’s teaching of RLC layer and PDCP layer). This is again not persuasive for the same reasons given above. Regarding the remark that the indication is not in the PDU, Brunello teaches using ECN which contains congestion indication, as acknowledged by applicant. Applicant states this is simply the resulting mark and not a proportion of packets. However, Brunello further teaches multiple standard congestion control algorithms that respond proportionally to the number of congestion signals received based on the fraction of marked packets (Section II), these algorithms are used with L4S and ECN (Section III). Brunello further explains that L4S is implemented via pMark at the gNB (Section IV), and that the gNB provides a PDU session for users (Section IV. E). The sum of these teachings is not simply the resulting mark as suggested by applicant but rather the sending and receiving between network nodes of indications of a proportion of packets marked with congestion indicators included in protocol data units as required by the claim. For at least these reasons, applicant’s remarks are not persuasive; therefore, the rejection is maintained. As mentioned before, examiner recommends amending the claims to incorporate features that are cited only in the preamble if applicant intends for those features to be given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 30- 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brunello et al. “Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput in 5G Networks” 2021 IEEE 93rd Vehicular Technology Conference (Spring 2021), pg. 1-7 (cited in IDS 3/19/2024).
Regarding claim 30, Brunello discloses:
A method performed by a first network node for uplink congestion control in a radio network, the first network node handling one or more first layers of a protocol stack, including a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, for an uplink connection between a wireless device and the radio network, the first network node being communicatively coupled to a second network node handling one or more second layers of the protocol stack for the uplink connection, wherein the one or more second layers are lower than the one or more first layers (cellular network is wireless, has layers including PDCP – see Abstract, Section I), the method comprising:
receiving from the second network node an assistance information protocol data unit (PDU) comprising an indication of a proportion of packets within an uplink user plane flow over the uplink connection that are to be marked with a congestion indicator, wherein the proportion is based on a delay experienced by packets of the uplink user plane flow sent by the wireless device to the second network node (PDU with congestion marking, based on ECN which is very well-known in the art – see Sections II, III);
marking the proportion of packets with the congestion indicator (mark packets – Section IV); and
transmitting packets for the uplink user plane flow towards a core network of the radio network (transmit data toward core – Section IV, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Brunello discloses marking the proportion of packets with the congestion indicator is performed by setting ECN bits in the IP header (this is how ECN works – see Section I).
Regarding claim 32, Brunello discloses the indication explicitly states the proportion of packets that are to be marked (pMark indicates probability of marking, it uses a lower and upper threshold to control marking thus teaching a “proportion” of packets that are t be marked, e.g. the proportion between the thresholds – Section IV).
Regarding claim 33, it is a method claim that corresponds to the method of claim 30 but is directed to a second network node. The corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons.
Brunello discloses: sending, to the first network node, packets for an uplink user plane flow over the uplink connection, for onward transmission towards a core network node the radio network (see Fig. 1, Section IV); and
sending, to the first network node an assistance information protocol data unit (PDU) comprising an indication of a proportion of packets within the uplink user plane flow over the uplink connection that are to be marked with a congestion indicator, wherein the proportion is based on a delay experienced by packets of the uplink user plane flow sent by the wireless device to the second network node (as explained above, the L4S system method of Brunello includes multiple network nodes and sends PDU with congestion indication for marking packets – see Sections I-IV).
Regarding claim 34, it corresponds to claim 32 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 35, Brunello discloses the indication of the proportion of packets that are to be marked comprises an indication of a probability with which the first network node is to mark packets of the uplink user plane flow (pMark is probability – Section IV).
Regarding claim 36, Brunello discloses the first network node comprises a centralized unit of a base station and the second network node comprises a distributed unit of the base station (see Fig. 1, plurality of network nodes / base station / GnB; also, it is well-known in the art for GnB functions to be central/distributed, i.e. CU, DU – this is disclosed in applicant’s specification as “5G standard” – paragraph 10).
Regarding claims 37-39, they are device claims that correspond to the method of claims 30-32 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 40-42, they are device claims that corresponds to the method of claims 33-35 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Navon et al. US 2021/0352016 A1 discloses transmitting a marking ratio based on data rates and marking packets according to the marking ratio (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5-6).
Hadi Salim et al. US 6,625,118 B1 discloses marking packets for congestion by placing congestion information in IP packet headers using ECN (abstract, col. 1 ln. 10 – col. 2 ln. 40).
Johansson WO 2020/159416 (cited in applicant IDS filed 03/19/2024) teaches network nodes that detect congestion and mark/flag packets (Fig. 6-10).
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 JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458