Response to an Amendment
This office action is a response to a communication made on 01/28/2026.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks on page 8, filed 01/28/2026, with respect to claim 20 have been considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant: Applicant arguments, see remark on page 8-10, filed 01/28/2026, applicant argues that, “LEE and LUDWIG, taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose "receive or identify, by the UE, an indication of a congestion condition," as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner: Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During the interview, the examiner agreed that ¶0056 of Ludwig does not explicitly teach the claimed concept. The examiner nevertheless relied on a newly identified paragraph in Ludwig as allegedly teaching the concept of the claim.
Ludwig teaches receive or identify, by the UE, an indication of a congestion condition because ¶0033, teaches congestion may be detected (i.e. identified) on the basis of at least one queuing parameter of a queue 181 to which the data packets of the flow are assigned before being transmitted via the radio link 250 to the respective UE 210, 220, ¶0042, teaches marking one or more data packets of the flow associated with the selected bearer with a congestion indication, ¶0085, teaches receives indications of detected congestions from the first congestion detector 386 and the second congestion detector 387.
Regarding claims 14 and 15 are not persuaded because of the above reason. For further clarification please see the rejection below.
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) 1-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et a. (KR 20240024725), hereinafter “Lee” in view of Ludwig et al. (US 2013/0010598 A1), hereinafter “Ludwig”. An English translation has been attached with this application.
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories (¶0117); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (¶0116), configured to cause the UE (¶0023, teaches UE) to:
receive, by the UE (¶0023, teaches a terminal may include a UE (User Equipment), ¶0047, teaches the terminal that has received the bit indicator performs a PDU set discard operation for DRBs), a configuration of a criterion for discarding protocol data units (PDUs) associated with one or more PDU sets (¶0047, teaches the terminal can perform a PDU set discarding operation in the PDCP entity corresponding to the DRBs, ¶0048, teaches the PDU set discarding operation can be set on a DRB basis, and when the PDU set discarding operation is set on a DRB basis, the PDU set discarding operation can be performed for all PDU sets transmitted through the DRB);
discard, by the UE (¶0023, teaches a terminal may include a UE (User Equipment), ¶0047, teaches the terminal that has received the bit indicator performs a PDU set discard operation for DRBs), one or more PDUs of a PDU set according to a PDU set importance (PSI) parameter of the PDU set, wherein the discard is based at least in part on the criterion (¶0055, teaches an indicator (e.g., ImportanceLevel, etc.) indicating the importance of the PDU set may be given in units of PDU sets… If the importance value (ImportanceLevel) given for a specific PDU set is greater than the importance boundary value at which the PDU set discarding operation must be performed (150), the PDCP entity can perform the PDU set discarding operation for the PDU set).
However, Lee remain silent on receive or identify, by the UE, an indication of a congestion condition.
Ludwig discloses receive or identify, by the UE, an indication of a congestion condition (¶0033, teaches congestion may be detected (i.e. identified) on the basis of at least one queuing parameter of a queue 181 to which the data packets of the flow are assigned before being transmitted via the radio link 250 to the respective UE 210, 220, ¶0042, teaches marking one or more data packets of the flow associated with the selected bearer with a congestion indication, ¶0085, teaches receives indications of detected congestions from the first congestion detector 386 and the second congestion detector 387).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Lee’s system with receive or identify an indication of a congestion condition of Ludwig, in order to detect when the traffic is too high, so it can react such as slow down, reroute or prioritize and keeping the network efficient and stable (Ludwig, ¶0042).
For claim 16, it is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same ground as claim 1.
For claim 20, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore claim 6 is rejected under the same ground as claim 1.
With respect to claims 2 and 17, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the criterion indicates a time threshold for a remaining time (Lee, ¶0096, teaches set the threshold value of the PDU set importance, ¶0045, teaches a discardTimer is set on the PDCP entity of a specific DRB used to transmit latency-sensitive traffic, the PDCP entity for which the discardTimer is set can start the discarTimer associated with the PDCP SDU when it receives the PDCP SDU from the upper layer) , wherein the remaining time is based at least in part on a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discard timer and a length of time for which a given PDU has been in a buffer of the UE (Lee, ¶0045, teaches a discardTimer is set on the PDCP entity of a specific DRB used to transmit latency-sensitive traffic, the PDCP entity for which the discardTimer is set can start the discarTimer associated with the PDCP SDU when it receives the PDCP SDU from the upper layer).
With respect to claim 3, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the time threshold is specific to the PSI parameter (Lee, ¶0096, teaches set the threshold value (i.e. time threshold) of the PDU set importance (i.e. PSI), ¶0084, teaches If the ImportanceLevel value of a specific PDU set (143, 147) is lower than the ImportanceLevel value of the previous PDU set (140, 145), the PDU set (143, 147) may be judged to be dependent on the previous PDU set (140, 145)).
With respect to claim 4, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the time threshold is based at least in part on the PDCP discard timer (Lee, ¶0096, teaches set the threshold value (i.e. time threshold) of the PDU set importance (i.e. PSI), ¶0091, teaches the discardTimer operating method can be set for PDCP discarding operation).
With respect to claim 5, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the PDCP discard timer is specific to the PSI parameter (Lee, ¶0084, teaches If the ImportanceLevel value of a specific PDU set (143, 147) is lower than the ImportanceLevel value of the previous PDU set (140, 145), the PDU set (143, 147) may be judged to be dependent on the previous PDU set (140, 145, ¶0090, teaches the discardTimer value can be set separately for 1) each DRB, 2) each PDU type, and 3) each PDU set type).
With respect to claim 6, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein a length of the PDCP discard timer is associated with the congestion condition (Lee, ¶0091, teaches the discardTimer operating method can be set for PDCP discarding operation, Ludwig, ¶0085, teaches receives indications of detected congestions from the first congestion detector 386 and the second congestion detector 387).
With respect to claim 7, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the time threshold is based at least in part on combining the PDCP discard timer and a scaling factor, wherein the scaling factor is associated with the PSI parameter (Lee, ¶0089, teaches the UECapabilityInformation message may include a parameter indicating whether the terminal 100 supports the PDU set discarding operation, ¶0091, teaches the discardTimer operating method can be set for PDCP discarding operation, ¶0096, teaches set the threshold value (i.e. time threshold) of the PDU set importance (i.e. PSI)) .
With respect to claim 8, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to discard the one or more PDUs of the PDU set, are configured to cause the UE to discard all PDUs associated with the PSI parameter (Lee, ¶0055, teaches an indicator (e.g., ImportanceLevel, etc.) indicating the importance of the PDU set (i.e. PSI) may be given in units of PDU sets… If the importance value (ImportanceLevel) given for a specific PDU set is greater than the importance boundary value at which the PDU set discarding operation must be performed (150), the PDCP entity can perform the PDU set discarding operation for the PDU set).
With respect to claim 9 and 18, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to discard the one or more PDUs of the PDU set, are configured to cause the UE to discard the one or more PDUs based at least in part on the PSI parameter failing to satisfy a threshold (Lee, ¶0055, teaches an indicator (e.g., ImportanceLevel, etc.) indicating the importance of the PDU set (i.e. PSI) may be given in units of PDU sets… If the importance value (ImportanceLevel) given for a specific PDU set is greater than the importance boundary value at which the PDU set discarding operation must be performed (150), the PDCP entity can perform the PDU set discarding operation for the PDU set, Ludwig, see ¶0063).
With respect to claim 10, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive or identify the indication of the congestion condition, are configured to cause the UE to receive the indication (Ludwig, ¶0033, teaches congestion may be detected (i.e. identified) on the basis of at least one queuing parameter of a queue 181 to which the data packets of the flow are assigned before being transmitted via the radio link 250 to the respective UE 210, 220, ¶0042, teaches marking one or more data packets of the flow associated with the selected bearer with a congestion indication, ¶0085, teaches receives indications of detected congestions from the first congestion detector 386 and the second congestion detector 387.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive the indication, are configured to cause the UE to receive the indication via at least one of:
a radio resource control message (Lee, ¶0021, teaches radio resource control (RRC) signaling),
a medium access control element (Lee, ¶0021, media access control (MAC) control element (CE)),
a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) PDU (Lee, ¶0035, teaches the PDCP PDU), or
a radio link control PDU (Lee, ¶0035, teaches radio link control (RLC), Ludwig, ¶0003, teaches Radio Link Control (RLC) between the UE and the Radio Network Controller (RNC)).
With respect to claim 12, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
receive configuration information indicating a second criterion for identifying the congestion condition, wherein receiving or identifying the indication of the congestion condition further comprises identifying the indication in accordance with the second criterion (Lee, ¶0045, teaches the PDCP SDU discard operation in the PDCP layer described above can be set when transmitting delay-sensitive traffic, Ludwig, ¶0042, teaches marking one or more data packets of the flow associated with the selected bearer with a congestion indication, ¶0085, teaches receives indications of detected congestions from the first congestion detector 386 and the second congestion detector 387).
With respect to claim 13, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the second criterion is based at least in part on at least one of:
a PDU error rate of one or more data radio bearers, or
a delay parameter (Lee, ¶0045, teaches the PDCP SDU discard operation in the PDCP layer described above can be set when transmitting delay-sensitive traffic).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ludwig, and further in view of Shiva et al. (US 2012/0008573), hereinafter “Shiva”.
With respect to claim 14, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Lee, ¶0021, teaches from a terminal to a base station using an uplink data channel of the physical layer, Ludwig, ¶0057, teaches the congestion message may indicate the type of congestion, e.g. uplink congestion on the radio link 250, and also the bearer on which the congestion was detected, e.g. by being transmitted via a feedback channel established on this bearer. However, Lee in view of Ludwig remain silent on wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: end the congestion condition based at least in part on an uplink data buffer of the UE being empty.
Shiva discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: end the congestion condition based at least in part on an uplink data buffer of the UE being empty (¶0052-¶0053, teaches A pending data packet can be discarded after the maximum number of service request retries have occurred for the pending data packet. After discarding data packets, in step 1408, the XCVR 404 can determine if there are any remaining pending data packets in the data buffer. If the pending data packet buffer is empty, then the process can terminate… once radio access bearers have been allocated or the pending data packet buffer empties, in step 1416 the retry interval can be reset to a default retry interval value and the process can end).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Lee’s in view of Ludwig’s congestion indication and uplink congestion of the radio link with end the congestion condition based at least in part on an uplink data buffer of the UE being empty of Shiva, in order to confirm that data backlog has cleared, ensuring fast recovery from congestion and minimal signaling overhead (Shiva, ¶0039 and ¶0052-¶0053).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ludwig, and further in view of Fu (US 2022/0141146A1).
With respect to claim 15, Lee in view of Ludwig discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, Lee in view of Ludwig remain silent on wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: end the congestion condition in accordance with a timer.
Fu discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: end the congestion condition in accordance with a timer (¶0102, teaches QoS flow and the information of the first discard timer used by the first QoS flow, ¶0211, teaches an end time of the timer).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Lee’s in view of Ludwig’s congestion indication with end the congestion condition in accordance with a timer of Fu, in order to ensure that the system doesn’t stay throttled forever and recovers smoothly from temporary congestion (Fu).
Conclusion
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 GOLAM MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)270-0385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8.00-5.00pm.
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 5712703037. 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.
/G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2458
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights