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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 13, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phuyal US 20200245334 in view of Dudda US 20200322094.
Regarding claims 1, 22, Phuyal teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to:
receive an indication to transmit a packet based at least in part on receiving a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) status report during an active state of a timer, or based at least in part on an expiration of the timer (the acknowledgment
manager 1635 may retransmit the first uplink data transmission
responsive to the retransmission timer expiring prior to
receiving the acknowledgment from the base station, the
acknowledgment from the base station is a layer one HARQ acknowledgment, a layer two acknowledgment, or layer three acknowledgment from the base station provided via one or more of a MAC-CE, a RLC status report, a PDCP status report, [0186]); and
transmit the packet during the active state of the timer, if the PDCP status report is received during the active state of the timer, or transmitting the packet based at least in
part on the expiration of the timer, if the PDCP status report is not received during the active state of the timer based at least in part on the indication (the acknowledgment
manager 1635 may retransmit the first uplink data transmission
responsive to the retransmission timer expiring prior to
receiving the acknowledgment from the base station, the
acknowledgment from the base station is a layer one HARQ acknowledgment, a layer two acknowledgment, or layer three acknowledgment from the base station provided via one or more of a MAC-CE, a RLC status report, a PDCP status report, [0186]).
Phuyal is silent on wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit the packet based at least in part on receiving a message, from a second UE, after the expiration of the timer, associated with a prior transmission of the packet;
initiate the timer based at least in part on an initiation of a PDCP re-establishment procedure or a PDCP data recovery procedure; or
stop the timer based at least in part on an initiation of a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure.
Dudda teaches initiate the timer based at least in part on an initiation of a PDCP re-establishment procedure or a PDCP data recovery procedure (PDCP status report, [0054], Moreover, in some examples, when duplication is being used, when duplicate retransmissions are triggered (e.g. in the event of PDCP re-establishment or PDCP data recovery), e.g. for AM-mode, the timer should be started for PDCP PDUs that have not yet been transmitted during the retransmission procedure, [0068]).
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 system of Phuyal by initiate the timer based at least in part on an initiation of a PDCP re-establishment procedure or a PDCP data recovery procedure, as shown by Dudda. This modification would benefit the system by ensuring PDCP re-establishment procedure or a PDCP data recovery procedure is performed in a timely manner.
Note:
Lohr US 20070183451 makes obvious the limitation transmit the packet based at least in part on receiving a message, from a second UE, after the expiration of the (In case the mobile
terminal determined that a NACK has been received, it continues by sending a retransmission data packet after expiry of a first predetermined time period upon having received the feedback, [0134])
Tsai US 20230122869 makes obvious the limitation stop the timer based at least in part on an initiation of a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure (The SDT TA timer and/or TA timer may be stopped when the UE initiates an RRC re-establishment procedure, [0289]))
Regarding claim 7, the one or more processors are
further configured to stop the timer based at least in part on receiving the PDCP status report (Phuyal: the acknowledgment manager 1635 may receive the acknowledgment from the base station and may discontinue the retransmission timer, [0186]).
Regarding claim 13, the indication to transmit the packet
is an indication to retransmit the packet, and wherein transmitting the packet comprises retransmitting the packet (Phuyal: retransmit, [0186]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Phuyal and Dudda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohr US 20070183451.
The combination is silent on the message is a lower
layer acknowledgement message indicating that the packet was not received from the prior transmission.
Lohr makes obvious the message is a lower layer acknowledgement message indicating that the packet was not
received from the prior transmission (In case the mobile
terminal determined that a NACK has been received, it continues by sending a retransmission data packet after expiry of a first predetermined time period upon having received the feedback, [0134]).
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 system of the combination by on the message is a lower layer acknowledgement message indicating that the packet was not received from the prior transmission, as suggested by Lohr. This modification would benefit the system by providing for a proven, reliable method for performing retransmission.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Phuyal and Dudda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilhelmsson US 20100202416.
Regarding claim 9, the combination is silent on determine that the indication includes one or more errors; and
transmit the packet based at least in part on receiving a lower layer acknowledgement message / NACK indicating that the packet was not received from a prior transmission of the packet.
Wilhelmsson teaches the limitation determine that the indication includes one or more errors; and
transmit the packet based at least in part on receiving a lower layer acknowledgement message indicating that the packet was not received from a prior transmission of the packet given Wilhelmsson teaches (status report, In case a NACK is received (possibly implicit), the already-transmitted packet is retransmitted since the timer has not expired, [0063]). Note, Kadiri US 20200029260 teaches errors detection using a NACK, [0053]).
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 system of the combination by determine that the indication includes one or more errors; and transmit the packet based at least in part on receiving a lower layer acknowledgement message indicating that the packet was not received from a prior transmission of the packet given Wilhelmsson teaches, as suggested by Wilhelmsson. This modification would benefit the system by retransmitting packets that were received in error.
Regarding claim 10, 25, wherein the PDCP status report indicates one or more packets, of a plurality of packets, that have been received, by a base station, from a prior transmission of the plurality of packets (Wilhelmsson: status report, In case a NACK is received (possibly implicit), the already-transmitted packet is retransmitted since the timer has not expired, [0063]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Phuyal, Dudda and Wilhelmsson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sambhwani US 20090201871.
The combination is silent on the one or more processors are
configured to transmit a remainder of the plurality of packets.
Sambhwani teaches one or more processors are configured to
transmit a remainder of the plurality of packets ( Upon receiving the RLC ACKs, STATUS PDUs, or CQI/ACK information, the wireless network access point 402 can send the remaining traffic data packets efficiently based on the feedback provided by the AT 404, [0077]).
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 system of the combination by one or more processors are configured to transmit a remainder of the plurality of packets, as shown by Sambhwani. This modification would benefit the system by providing a proven, reliable method for transmitting packets.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination Phuyal and Dudda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu US 20090316664.
Although Phuyal teaches an indication to transmit the packet / PDCP status report, the combination is silent on the indication is received via a RRC message.
Wu teaches transmitting a PDCP status report via RRC message (PDCP entity 320 transmits a PDCP status report
configured by RRC, [0032]).
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 system of the combination by an indication to transmit the packet / PDCP status report, the reference is silent on the indication is received via a RRC message, as shown by Wu. This modification would benefit the system by providing a proven, reliable method for transmitting the PDCP status report.
Claim(s) 5, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Phuyal and Dudda as applied to claims 1, 22 above, and further in view of KANAMARLAPUDI US 20150304838.
The combination is silent on initiating the timer based at least in part on receiving the indication.
KANAMARLAPUDI teaches initiating a timer based at least in part on receiving the indication / ACK (the network configured
timer 62 may be initiated in response to receiving the last ACK, [0049]). Note, the PDCP status report can be seen as an ACK.
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 system of the combination by initiating the timer based at least in part on receiving the indication, as suggested by KANAMARLAPUDI. This modification would benefit the system by ensuring a confirmation message is received before the timer expires (KANAMARLAPUDI: [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16-21, 26, and 28-30 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD B ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/RONALD B ABELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights