DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the claims filed on 06/11/2026.
Application No: 18/699,784.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note: Examiner has tried to contact applicant representative, but no response received.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot for claims 13-38 in view of the amended claim(s). Applicant has amended all independent claim(s) (and/or submitted new claim(s)) with new limitations that has changed the scope of the invention. Hence new ground of rejection(s) applied. Claims 1-10 are allowable.
Further, For clarification:
Argument 1: Applicant argues (see remarks page 6 for claim 13) that which information is extracted from the Tag field.
Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. In claim 1, “a Tag includes information from plurality of sub-fields, the information including an AUD ID”. However in claim 13, “a Tag indicating information, the information including an ADU ID”. Comparing both claims, it is not clearly disclosed that a Tag referencing from a sub-field as in claim 1 or referencing from a field as in claim 13 (implied). In claim 25, there is no reference of a Tag. Therefore, it is recommended to have uniform limitations in all the independent claims for allowance.
Further, MPEP state that:
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions (see MPEP, 35 USC 120 (Divisional applications)).
Argument 2: Applicant argues (see remarks page 10 for claim 13 and similarly 25) that Zhu does not describe ADU and ADU ID. Therefore Zhu failed to disclose claim 13 limitations (implied).
Response 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. Applicant is attacking references based on a piecemeal analysis on paragraphs basis instead of considering entire prior arts. The primary prior art by Rangan et al. teaches argued limitation, namely, ADU, ADU ID (SN), TAG (SN) as cited in the office action below. The secondary prior art by Zhu et al is used to teach extracting information from a field and downlink scheduling. As per USC 103 obviousness rejection. Also see following MPEP explanation:
(a) MPEP states that In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (or piecemeal analysis on paragraphs), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(b) Further MPEP states that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
(c ) Also MPEP 2141.02 (VI) state that A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 13, 15, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangan (US 20120147936 A1) in view of ZhuXipeng ( US 20200396275 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Rangan teaches a processor of a base station ([0049], e.g. The base station 525 may include a base station scheduler 530 that creates a UL scheduling grant based on the load of the LC. … The UL scheduling grant may be shared amongst several other LCs within the wireless transmitter 310. The wireless transmitter 310 (i.e. the transmitter comprising a processor) determines the total number of bytes that can be transmitted corresponding to the particular UL scheduling grant), configured to:
process an Internet Protocol (IP) packet including a tag indicating information ([0041] e.g. FIG. 4 is a simplified block diagram of a generic real-time interface between the application transmitter 305 and the wireless transmitter 310 using an application-layer framing concept of network protocols in accordance with various embodiments (I.e. .WLAN based an Internet Protocol (IP) packet). … Each ADU 401 may include four fields such as a sequence number (SN) field 402, a time-to-live (TTL) field 403, a priority (PRI) field 404, and a payload field 405. The SN field 402 includes a sequence number that is used to identify return physical layer acknowledgments (i.e., PHY ACKs 303) indicating that the data 304 have been received correctly by the wireless receiver 320 (i.e. a Tag indicating SN identifier information). [0054] To enable this operation, the message 600 to the interface can be used to provide the wireless transmitter 310 with the tags (e.g., SN/PRI) of the buffered ADUs that the wireless transmitter 310 should drop without attempting to transmit (i.e. SN data can be used as a Tag in a message)),
the information including an application data unit (ADU) Identification (ID) for an ADU to which the IP packet belongs ([0041], e.g. The ADU header may include the SN field 402, the TTL field 403, and the PRI field 404. The application transmitter 305 populates the four fields with data or information using the particular application. [0054] To enable this operation, the message 600 to the interface can be used to provide the wireless transmitter 310 with the tags (e.g., SN/PRI) of the buffered ADUs that the wireless transmitter 310 should drop without attempting to transmit (i.e. SN data can be used as a identifier in a message)).
Rangan teaches a method that the communication protocol, RTCP packets contain direct information for quality of service (QoS) monitoring and congestion control of wireless channels. For example, sender reports (SR) and receiver reports (RR) exchange information on packet loss, jitter, and round-trip delay statistics of wireless channels. The transmitting end applications deliver SR to the receiving end applications and the receiving end applications deliver RR to the transmitting end applications. However Rangan differs from the claimed invention in not specifically and clearly describing wherein
extract the information indicated in the tag; and perform downlink (DL) scheduling for a user equipment (UE) based on the information extracted from the tag.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor, ZhuXipeng teaches wherein
extract the information indicated in the tag ( [0086] e.g. Note that a file is a set of one or more data packets (e.g., RLC PDUs, PDCP PDUs) that is jointly processed by an application, such as an XR application. A file is broken into IP packets depending on the maximum transmission unit (MTU) settings on the IP stack interfacing with the XR application. The IP packets can be fragmented into IP packet fragments (i.e. ordinary skills in the art can fragments IP packets into sub fields like ADU sub fields. ADU is a small data packet by 3GPP standard definition)). [0066], e.g. Each communication device 308 includes at least one transmitter (represented by the transmitter 310) for transmitting and encoding signals (e.g., messages, indications, information, and so on) and at least one receiver (represented by the receiver 312) for receiving and decoding signals (e.g., messages, indications, information, pilots, and so on) (i.e. extract or decode the information indicated in the identity of a packet field (e.g. Tag)). [0089] Each data packet 612 includes the file identifier of the file 610 in the header field of the data packet 612 (i.e. the information including an packet field similar to the ADU ID field SN); and
perform downlink (DL) scheduling for a user equipment (UE) based on the information extracted from the tag ([0028], e.g. In an aspect, a base station takes a file's file delay budget (FDB) into consideration when scheduling the downlink file transmissions to the UE. The base station may receive the file identifier (i.e. tag ID) at the MAC layer. More specifically, in delivering PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) to the RLC layer, the PDCP layer may indicate the file identifier to the RLC layer. In delivering RLC PDUs to the MAC layer, the RLC layer may indicate the file identifier to the MAC layer (I.e. DL scheduling based on the information extracted from the tag)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of ZhuXipeng within the method of Rangan. The motivation to combine references is that the combined system provides a method for file-based downlink transmission and retransmission of application files in a 5G system. In an aspect, each packet of a file may include the file identifier of the file in the header field of the packet. After sending the last packet of the file, upon receiving a negative acknowledgment from the UE, the base station can begin retransmission (i.e., transmission of repair bits). The base station may transmit repair bits until the UE acknowledges that it has received the file (See ZhuXipeng [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 13. ZhuXipeng further teaches wherein the information is included in an N3 encapsulation header ([0098], e.g. Another way that the file identifier and polling bit(s) can be included in a packet header is illustrated in FIG. 8 . [0055] in addition to communicating with the AMF 240 over the N2 interface, the RAN 202 also communicates with a user plane function (UPF) 280 over an interface referred to as the N3 interface (i.e. information is included in an N3 encapsulation header)).
The motivation to combine reference of ZhuXipeng within the method of Rangan before the effective filing date of the invention is that the new method provides that the present disclosure also describes techniques for burst awareness. In an aspect, when a base station knows that all the files of a burst have been delivered, the base station can send a GTS command to the recipient UE for power saving. The base station may know that all the files of a burst have been delivered based on the burst identifier in the GTP-U headers of the packets of the files of the burst (See ZhuXipeng [0028]).
Regarding claim 25, Rangan teaches a processor of a use equipment (UE) ([0049], e.g. The base station 525 may include a base station scheduler 530 that creates a UL scheduling grant based on the load of the LC, the channel conditions, and the relative priority of the UL scheduling request with other transmitters or users in the cell (i.e. other UE)). The wireless transmitter 310 (i.e. the transmitter comprising a processor) determines the total number of bytes that can be transmitted corresponding to the particular UL scheduling grant), configured to:
generate an Internet Protocol (IP) packet including a flow label comprising a plurality of sub-fields ([0041] e.g. FIG. 4 is a simplified block diagram of a generic real-time interface between the application transmitter 305 and the wireless transmitter 310 using an application-layer framing concept of network protocols in accordance with various embodiments (I.e. .WLAN based an Internet Protocol (IP) packet). [0047], Fig. 5, Each ADU 401 has a QoS requirement and the wireless transmitter 310 (e.g., modem) reports to the application whether the QoS requirement has been satisfied (i.e. transmit QOS requirement with a flow label). In one embodiment, the QoS requirement is a time to live that represents a maximum time the wireless transmitter 310 has to transmit a set of ADUs 401 and the wireless transmitter 310 indicates whether each ADU 401 within the set of ADUs was sent within the maximum time (i.e. generating Protocol (IP) packet including a flow label comprising a plurality of sub-fields). [0041] Each ADU 401 may include four fields (i.e. sub-fields) such as a sequence number (SN) field 402, a time-to-live (TTL) field 403, a priority (PRI) field 404, and a payload field 405. The SN field 402 includes a sequence number that is used to identify return physical layer acknowledgments (i.e., PHY ACKs 303) indicating that the data 304 have been received correctly by the wireless receiver 320 (i.e. a sub-field indicating SN identifier information)),
the plurality of sub-fields including an application data unit (ADU) identifier (ID) field for an ADU to which the IP packet belongs ([0041], e.g. The ADU header may include the SN field 402, the TTL field 403, and the PRI field 404. The application transmitter 305 populates the four fields with data or information using the particular application. [0054] To enable this operation, the message 600 to the interface can be used to provide the wireless transmitter 310 with the tags (e.g., SN/PRI) of the buffered ADUs that the wireless transmitter 310 should drop without attempting to transmit (i.e. SN data can be used as a identifier in a message)).
Rangan teaches a method that the communication protocol, RTCP packets contain direct information for quality of service (QoS) monitoring and congestion control of wireless channels. For example, sender reports (SR) and receiver reports (RR) exchange information on packet loss, jitter, and round-trip delay statistics of wireless channels. The transmitting end applications deliver SR to the receiving end applications and the receiving end applications deliver RR to the transmitting end applications. However Rangan differs from the claimed invention in not specifically and clearly describing wherein
prepare, for transmission to a base station, the IP packet with the flow label.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor, ZhuXipeng teaches wherein
prepare, for transmission to a base station, the IP packet with the flow label ([0055], e.g. traffic usage reporting, quality of service (QoS) handling for the user plane (e.g., uplink/downlink rate enforcement, reflective QoS marking in the downlink), uplink traffic verification (service data flow (SDF) to QoS flow mapping), transport level packet marking in the uplink and downlink, downlink packet buffering and downlink data notification triggering, and sending and forwarding of one or more “end markers” to the source RAN node (i.e. preparing data packets and sending with QOS flow label as per 3GPP Release 8 standard (QoS Control in the3GPP Evolved Packet System, Figure 6))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of ZhuXipeng within the method of Rangan . The motivation to combine references is that the combined system provides a method for file-based downlink transmission and retransmission of application files in a 5G system. In an aspect, each packet of a file may include the file identifier of the file in the header field of the packet. After sending the last packet of the file, upon receiving a negative acknowledgment from the UE, the base station can begin retransmission (i.e., transmission of repair bits). The base station may transmit repair bits until the UE acknowledges that it has received the file (See ZhuXipeng [0027]).
Regarding claim 26, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 25. Rangan further teaches wherein process, based on signals received from the base station, a configuration for a packet filter including a flow label field to indicate the flow label ([0013], e.g. First, communication protocols (such as RTP and RTCP) of the transport layers 103 and 108 provide the end-to-end feedback from the receiver 106 to the transmitter 101 and vice versa. RTCP packets contain direct information for quality of service (QoS) monitoring and congestion control of wireless channels. For example, sender reports (SR) and receiver reports (RR) exchange information on packet loss, jitter, and round-trip delay statistics of wireless channels. The transmitting end applications deliver SR to the receiving end applications and the receiving end applications deliver RR to the transmitting end applications. [0041] Each ADU 401 may include four fields such as a sequence number (SN) field 402, a time-to-live (TTL) field 403, a priority (PRI) field 404, and a payload field 405. … The application transmitter 305 populates the four fields with data or information using the particular application (I.e. Transmit packets with QOS configuration information including a packet filter and a flow label fields as per 3GPP Release 8 standard (QoS Control in the3GPP Evolved Packet System, Figure 6))).
Regarding claim 27, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 25. ZhuXipeng further teaches wherein the IP packet is destined for a user equipment (UE), wherein the processor and the UE are accessing an external data network comprising an extended reality (XR) service ([0051] Fig. 4, The wireless communications system 100 may further include an extended reality (XR) UE 164 that may communicate with a macro cell base station 102 over a communication link 120 and/or the mmW base station 180 over a mmW communication link 184. For example, the macro cell base station 102 may support a PCell and one or more SCells for the XR UE 164 and the mmW base station 180 may support one or more SCells for the XR UE 164. The XR UE 164 may also communicate with an XR device 162 over a D2D P2P link 160. In an aspect, the XR device 162 may be a VR/AR/MR headset or the like (i.e. the IP packet is destined for a user equipment (UE))).
The motivation to combine reference of ZhuXipeng within the method of Rangan before the effective filing date of the invention is that the new method provides that the present disclosure also describes techniques for burst awareness. In an aspect, when a base station knows that all the files of a burst have been delivered, the base station can send a GTS command to the recipient UE for power saving. The base station may know that all the files of a burst have been delivered based on the burst identifier in the GTP-U headers of the packets of the files of the burst (See ZhuXipeng [0028]).
Regarding claim 29, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 27. ZhuXipeng further teaches wherein the plurality of sub-fields further includes an expiry time field to indicate a time duration to wait to receive all packets of the ADU prior to discarding packets of the ADU already received [0091], e.g. Alternatively, rather than the base station polling the UE for feedback, the UE may be configured to identify the last data packet 612 of the file 610 similarly to the base station. More specifically, after reception of each data packet 612, the UE resets a timer. If no data packet 612 of the file 610 is received from the base station before expiration of the timer, it means that the last received data packet 612 was the last data packet 612 of the file 610. In that case, after expiration of the timer, the UE can transmit an acknowledgment (ACK) or a negative acknowledgment (NACK) for the file 610, as appropriate (i.e. an expiry time field to indicate a time duration to wait to receive all packets prior to discarding packets)).
The motivation to combine reference of ZhuXipeng within the method of Rangan before the effective filing date of the invention is that the new method provides that the present disclosure also describes techniques for burst awareness. In an aspect, when a base station knows that all the files of a burst have been delivered, the base station can send a GTS command to the recipient UE for power saving. The base station may know that all the files of a burst have been delivered based on the burst identifier in the GTP-U headers of the packets of the files of the burst (See ZhuXipeng [0028]).
Regarding claim 30, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 29. Rangan further teaches wherein the plurality of sub-fields further includes a remaining packet size field to indicate a number of bytes remaining for transmission for the ADU ([0049], e.g. The UL scheduling grant may be shared amongst several other LCs within the wireless transmitter 310. The wireless transmitter 310 determines the total number of bytes that can be transmitted corresponding to the particular UL scheduling grant and allocates or grants at least a fraction of a transport block to the application LC (also known as "Grant for LC") (i.e. Ordinary skills in the art can includes a remaining packet size field to indicate a number of bytes remaining in a field for transmission instead of the total byte field).
Regarding claim 32, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 25. Rangan further teaches wherein the plurality of sub-fields further includes a priority field to indicate a type of media in the IP packet, wherein the priority field indicates whether an I-slice or a P-slice generated by a video compression standard is in the IP packet ([0041] e.g. Each ADU 401 may include four fields such as a sequence number (SN) field 402, a time-to-live (TTL) field 403, a priority (PRI) field 404, and a payload field 405. … The application transmitter 305 populates the four fields with data or information using the particular application. [0042] The payload field 405 includes data or information related to the application and is typically set to a meaningful unit of the application. The data may be control data, multimedia data, voice data, video data, picture data, streaming or still video data, web page data, and other types of data. For video data, for example, the payload data may be set to a meaningful unit of one video slice (I.e. I-slice or a P-slice generated by a video compression standard ) or one video frame or sequence of frames. In one embodiment, the size of the payload data is not related to or is not the same as the wireless link-layer media access control (MAC) packet size (i.e. the priority field indicates whether an I-slice or a P-slice generated by a video compression standard is in the IP packet)).
Regarding claim 34, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 25. Rangan further teaches wherein the plurality of sub-fields further includes a policy field indicating a policy for treatment of bits within the ADU ([0050], e.g. The scheduling policies are generally configured by the application and may include strict priority or weighted utility. Once the data is scheduled using a scheduling policy, the data is transmitted back to the wireless transmitter 310 as a packet from LC. Since the grant size may have no relation to the ADU payload size, the packet from LC may be a multiple or fraction of the ADUs payloads (i.e. the plurality of sub-fields further includes a policy field ). [0053] The StartSN field 602 includes the sequence number of the ADU 401 that corresponds to the first most-significant bit in the bitmask. The bitmask field 603 includes a (n+1)-bit bitmask that denotes the action to be taken for the ADUs in the range [StartSN, StartSN+n] with 1 at bit m denoting that the ADU 401 with SN equal to (SrartSN+m) be dropped (i.e. a policy for treatment of bits within the ADU )).
Regarding claim 35, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 25. Rangan further teaches wherein configure to generate, for transmission to the base station, an ADU status, wherein the ADU status is reported using uplink control information (UCI) over a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) ([0044], e.g. After the wireless transmitter 310 has successfully transmitted the ADU 401 or after the TTL time period has expired, the wireless transmitter 310 sends a transmit status message 301 to the application transmitter 305. Each transmit status message 301 may include three fields such as a sequence number (SN) field 407, a time delivered field 408, and a result field 409. The SN field 407 includes the sequence number of the ADU 401 that the status is for (i.e. configure to generate, for transmission to the base station, an ADU status). [0046] FIG. 5 is a flow diagram showing a priority queue implementation of the generic real-time application layer framing interface for an exemplary 3rd Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution (3 GPP LTE) air interface in accordance with various embodiments. The implementation shows uplink (UL) transmissions of application data 304 from the wireless transmitter 310 to a base station 525. [0047] In FIG. 5, only one LC is used for the ADUs 401 of the applications. This single LC may be referred to as an application LC; however, other embodiments and implementations may include several other LCs from the same wireless transmitter 310 (i.e. ADU status is reported using uplink control information (UCI) over a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)).
Regarding claim 37, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 35. Rangan further teaches wherein the ADU status comprises a remaining packet size and an expiry time for the ADU ([0049], e.g. The UL scheduling grant may be shared amongst several other LCs within the wireless transmitter 310. The wireless transmitter 310 determines the total number of bytes that can be transmitted corresponding to the particular UL scheduling grant and allocates or grants at least a fraction of a transport block to the application LC (also known as "Grant for LC") (i.e. Ordinary skills in the art can includes a remaining packet size in a field to indicate a number of bytes remaining for transmission instead of the total byte field. [0044] Each transmit status message 301 may include three fields such as a sequence number (SN) field 407, a time delivered field 408, and a result field 409. The SN field 407 includes the sequence number of the ADU 401 that the status is for. The time delivered field 408 includes a time at which either the wireless transmitter 310 was able to deliver or transmit the ADU 401 or a time at which the wireless transmitter 310 gave up the transmission attempt. The result field 409 includes an indicator indicating whether the ADU 401 was successfully transmitted or whether the time expired before successful transmission (i.e. the ADU status comprises a remaining packet size and an expiry time for the ADU)).
Regarding claim 38, Rangan in view of ZhuXipeng teaches all the limitations of claim 35. ZhuXipeng further teaches wherein a two-part UCI is used wherein a first part of the UCI indicates a number of ADU reports and a second part of the UCI indicates actual ADU reports ([0043], e.g. The wireless transmitter 310 reports to the application transmitter 305 whether each ADU 401 has been successfully transmitted from the wireless transmitter 320 to the wireless receiver 320 (block 715, FIG. 7). In one embodiment, the plurality of physical layer acknowledgments sent from the wireless receiver 320 to the wireless transmitter 310 allow the wireless transmitter 310 to determine or know whether each ADU 401 was successfully transmitted from the wireless transmitter 320 to the wireless receiver 320 (I.e. a first part of the UCI indicates a number of ADU reports ). The wireless transmitter 310 may also reports to the application transmitter 305 whether a quality of service (QoS) requirement for each ADU 401 has been satisfied (block 720, FIG. 7). The wireless transmitter 310 is also able to determine whether each ADU 401 was sent to the wireless receiver 320 within the TTL time period (block 725, FIG. 7) (i.e. a second part of the UCI indicates actual ADU reports in a time period)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10 are allowed over prior arts provided amending claim(s) to overcome any objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 14 and 31 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; and amending claim(s) to overcome any objection(s) and /or rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for allowance
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The Applicants' replies make evident the reasons for allowance, satisfying the "record as a whole" proviso of the rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). Specifically, the substance of applicants' remarks, filed 06/11/2026 (See remarks page 8-10 for claim 1), are persuasive, as such the reasons for allowance are in all probability evident from the record and no statement is deemed necessary (see MPEP 1302. 14).
Prior Art Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent
to applicant’s disclosure.
Faccin; Stefano (US-20170289046-A1) - QUALITY OF SERVICE (QOS) MANAGEMENT IN WIRELESS NETWORKS.
HANDE; Prashanth Haridas (US-20200389813-A1) - TECHNIQUES FOR FILE AWARE COMMUNICATIONS.
FANG JIANMIN (WO-2019028697-A1) - Method for wireless communications involves providing quality of service (QoS) update including information indicative of mapping between QoS flow and corresponding radio resources for user data transmission.
LTE-3GPP release 8, QoS Control in the 3GPP Evolved Packet System, IEEE Communication Magazine, February 2009, Figure 5 and Figure 6, pages 78-82.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahendra Patel whose telephone number is (571)270-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM (EST).
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.
/MAHENDRA R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights