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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claims 4 and 19, line 3, it is unclear what is meant by “a quantity of data packets in the first data packet”.
In Claim 15, lines 3, 7, it is unclear what is meant by “if it is anticipated that the sending device is incapable of completing transmission of the remaining data packets…within the planned delay range, continuing transmission of the remaining data packets”. For instance, at what point in the “within the planned delay range” is needed to be anticipated to continue transmission of the “remaining data packets” or “is incapable of completing transmission”.
Applicant is requested to reference the specification so mete and bound can be determined.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG PG PUB 2024/0422852 in view of HE et al PG PUB 2024/0214874.
Re Claims 1, 9 and 16, DONG teaches in figure 1, AP MLD (a receiving device: a device comprising processor, CRM storing instructions) negotiating with non-AP STA MLD for determining link parameters (a first transmission policy) to be used to submit a set of data packets wherein the link parameters are associated with a PPDU type (a type of the first/second PDU set) [0031]. DONG fails to explicitly teach “determine whether a first protocol layer submits a data packet in a first/second PDU set to an upper layer…”. However, HE et al teaches a data packets (PDUs) are received at a data link layer (a first/second protocol) and are submitted/forwarded to upper layer for further processing the received PDUs [0114 0116 0117]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have the data link layer to submit the received data packets to the upper layer to ensure reliability data reception. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 10, DONG teaches the link parameter includes PPDU data rate [0031].
Claims 2, 3, 7, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG PG PUB 2024/0422852 in view of HE et al PG PUB 2024/0214874 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of SHIVA et al PG PUB 2012/0033554.
Re Claims 2, 3, 7, 14, 17 and 18, HE et al teaches the data link layer ensures reliable data transmission on a PHY link [0114] but fails to explicitly teach “submitting a successfully received data packet to the upper layer by using the first protocol layer;”.
However, SHIVA et al teaches exchanging data link layer messages indicating a successful acknowledgement of the received packet (a first data packet; a first condition) [0015]. By combining the teaching, the successful received data packet can be submitted to the upper layer to ensure reliable data transmission. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have submitted successfully received packet to the upper layer for reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 4-6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG PG PUB 2024/0422852 in view of HE et al PG PUB 2024/0214874 and SHIVA et al PG PUB 2012/0033554 as applied to Claim 3 above and further in view of KUO et al PG PUB 2026/0006426.
Re Claims 4, 5, 19 and 20, DONG PG in view of HE et al and SHIVA et al fails to explicitly teach the “first condition related to a location of the first data packet in the first PDU set.”. However, KUO et al teaches a UE is configured to identify whether a first packet from PDU set was not successfully delivery [See abstract] wherein the first packet is associated with a location continuity of the first data packet in the first PDU set. By combining the teaching, the when first packet was not successfully delivered, the remaining number of packets in the first PDU set is dropped to avoid unnecessary packet transmission when a critical packet of the PDU set is not successfully delivered [0002 0037]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have determined the successfully delivery of the first packet in the location continuity of the first PDU set to ensure reliable reception of critical packets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 6, KUO et al teaches HARQ NACK threshold (a second threshold) indicating a quantity of unsuccessfully received [0037].
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG PG PUB 2024/0422852 in view of HE et al PG PUB 2024/0214874 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of YANG PG PUB 2026/0039731.
Re Claim 8, DONG PG PUB in view of HE et al teaches determining link parameters (a first transmission policy) to be used to submit a set of data packets associated with the PPDU type (a type of the first PDU set) [0031]. DONG in view of HE et al fails to explicitly teach “the first transmission policy varies with the type of the first PDU set”. However, YANG teaches an apparatus classifying PDU types [0121] wherein based on the PDU types QoS parameters are varied [0102 0104]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have varied the QoS parameter according to the PDU type to maintain the QoS of the PDU type. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG PG PUB 2024/0422852 in view of HE et al PG PUB 2024/0214874 as applied to Claim 10 above and further in view of MA et al PG PUB 2023/0019478.
Re Claim 11, DONG in view of HE et al fails to explicitly teach “the second transmission policy is related to BLER of the transmission resource.”. However, MA et al teaches Network node 505 configuring Fist Communication Device 510 to measure a BLER range associated with a transport block [0098]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have configured the STA in DONG to determine the BLER of the allocated transmission resource to enable rate adaption for more robust connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 12, DONG can determine link parameters are associated with the same PDU type (if the type of the second PDU set is the first type).
Re Claim 13, DONG determines link parameters are associated with the same PDU type. In view of MA et al, the same BLER range can be configured/applied for the same PDU type, in this case, when the both PDU types are Voice Packet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights