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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 12-13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by He et al. (US 2025/0267509 A1), hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 1, He discloses: (1) a UE 350-fig.3 that has a controller/processor 359 coupled with a memory 360, and the controller/processor configured to cause the UE to perform the claim step; (2) a network may configure a default PDCP discard timer for each DRB. The duration of the default PDCP discard timer may be set to the packet delay budget (PDB) of the QoS flow(s) in the DRB (equivalent to receive a configuration for a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the UE, wherein the configuration comprises a set of timer configurations). A UE may start a PDCP discard timer for each PDCP SDU upon its arrival, see 0082 (receive a configuration for a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the UE; receive a service data unit (SDU) at the PDCP entity of the UE); (3) in some aspects, the apparatus 904 may include means for recalculating the respective PDCP discard timer based on a change in the congestion state. In some aspects, the apparatus 904 may include means for receiving a configuration configuring a plurality of quality of service (QOS) flows to be coupled based on a common multi-modal service identifier (MMSI), where the plurality of coupled SDUs are associated with the plurality of QoS flows, see 0107. In other words, the MMSI associates with the duration of the default PDCP discard timers for the QoS(s) in the DRB (equivalent to wherein the configuration comprises a set of timer configurations and a set of identifiers associated with the set of timer configurations); (4) start a respective PDCP discard timer associated with the subsequent SDU, see 0082, 0107 (equivalent to start a timer associated with the packet data convergence protocol entity of the UE and a timer configuration, wherein the timer configuration is applicable for the received SDU based at least in part on a corresponding identifier of the timer configuration and a respective identifier the received SDU).
Regarding claim 2, the term “PDCP discard timer” may refer to a default PDCP discard timer of a DRB (e.g., timers for different DRBs may have different durations) or a congestion specific PDCP discard timer that may be adjusted based on a congestion state at a wireless device. A PDCP discard timer may be denoted by “T.sub.discard,” A network may configure a default PDCP discard timer for each DRB. The duration of the default PDCP discard timer may be set to the packet delay budget (PDB) of the QoS flow(s) in the DRB, see 0082.
Regarding claim 5, the apparatus 904 may include means for receiving a configuration configuring a plurality of quality of service (QoS) flows to be coupled based on a common multi-modal service identifier (MMSI), where the plurality of coupled SDUs are associated with the plurality of QoS flows, see 0107.
Regarding claim 6, in an aspect of the disclosure, a method, a computer-readable medium, and an apparatus at a user equipment (UE) are provided. The apparatus may include at least one memory and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory. Based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to receive, from a network entity, a plurality of coupled service data units (SDUs). Based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to start a timer associated with the plurality of coupled SDUs upon arrival of a first SDU of the plurality of coupled SDUs, see 0006.
Regarding claim 7, the timer comprises a PDCP discard timer, see abstract.
Regarding claim 8, to configure inter-dependency between flows, configuration may be made at the level of QoS flows or at the level of SDUs/PDUs. For QoS flow level configuration, a QoS flow can be configured by RRC whether it is associated with a MMSI. Downlink and uplink of a same QoS flow can be configured with different MMSIs. For example, UL of a QoS flow may be associated with an MMSI but its DL counterpart may be not with the MMSI. Each MMSI may configured by RRC with a duration of common delivery time window L.sub.MM-delivery, see 0084.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under He for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, He discloses: (1) a BS 310-fig.3 that has a controller/processor 375 coupled with a memory 376, and the controller/processor configured to cause the BS to perform the claim step. The BS 310 implements a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, see 0062; (2) a network may configure a default PDCP discard timer for each DRB. The duration of the default PDCP discard timer may be set to the packet delay budget (PDB) of the QoS flow(s) in the DRB, see 0082 (equivalent to the configuration comprises a set of timer configurations); (3) in some aspects, the apparatus 904 may include means for recalculating the respective PDCP discard timer based on a change in the congestion state. In some aspects, the apparatus 904 may include means for receiving a configuration configuring a plurality of quality of service (QoS) flows to be coupled based on a common multi-modal service identifier (MMSI), where the plurality of coupled SDUs are associated with the plurality of QoS flows, see 0107. In other words, the MMSI associates with the duration of the default PDCP discard timers for each DRB (equivalent to a set of identifiers associated with the set of timer configurations).
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus 904 may include means for receiving a configuration configuring a plurality of quality of service (QoS) flows to be coupled based on a common multi-modal service identifier MMSI), where the plurality of coupled SDUs is associated with the plurality of QoS flows, see 0107.
Regarding claim 17, the timer comprises a PDCP discard timer, see abstract.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under He for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. The factual inquiries 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 3-4, 9-10, 14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over He, in view of Lohr et al. (US 2026/0012841), hereinafter Lohr.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 3, He discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to select the timer configuration based at least in part on a mapping between the corresponding identifier of the timer configuration and the respective identifier the received SDU.
Lohr from the same field of endeavor as He teaches the NE 102 configures the set of timer configurations for the PDCP entity of the UE 104. In implementations, the NE 102 configures a mapping between the set of timer configurations and the set of priority levels. The NE 102 transmits the PDCP configuration IE 500 to the UE 104. Upon reception of a PDU and/or SDU for transmission at the PDCP entity, the UE 104 selects a timer configuration from the set of timer configurations based on a priority level (identifier of the received SDU) of the PDU and/or SDU, see 0106.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to enable the UE to select a timer configuration based on a mapping between the set of timer configuration and the priority level of the SDU taught by Lohr into the system of He. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the UE to select a timer configuration based in part on the priority level associated with the SDU for XR traffic to prevent service interruption, reducing latency and to provide positive impact user experience.
Regarding claim 4, He discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein a value for the timer is based at least in part on the selected timer configuration.
Lohr from the same field of endeavor as He teaches the UE 104 initiates a timer corresponding to the selected timer configuration and having a time duration (value) indicated by the selected timer configuration, see 0074.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a timer corresponding to the selected timer configuration and having a time duration (value) as taught by
Lohr into the system of He. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to
enable the UE to run the timer until successful delivery of the SDU is confirmed or until the timer expires.
Regarding claim 9, He discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein each timer configuration of the set of timer configurations is associated with a respective quality of service flow.
Lohr from the same field of endeavor as He teaches the NE 102 transmits, to the UE 104, a PDCP configuration message indicating the set of timer configurations corresponding to the set of priority levels. The PDCP entity receives, from a higher layer, at least one SDU (e.g., PDCP SDU) for transmission (e.g., to the CN 106 and/or the NE 102). The SDU is associated with a priority level of the set of priority levels and a radio bearer and/or Qos Flow, see 0074.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a set of timer configuration and the SDU being associated with a priority level of the set of priority levels and a radio bearer and/or QoS flow taught by Lohr into the system of He. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement priority level for a quality of service (QoS) flow (e.g., a radio bearer) for a user in XR traffic to prevent service interruption, reducing latency and to provide positive impact user experience.
Regarding claim 10, He discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein each timer configuration is associated with a respective quality of service (QoS) flow.
Lohr from the same field of endeavor as He teaches the UE 104 selects a timer configuration from the set of timer configuration that corresponds to the priority level associated with the SDU, see 0074.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a timer configuration that corresponds to the priority level associated with the SDU as taught by Lohr into the system of He. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement priority level for a quality of service (QoS) flow (e.g., a radio bearer) for a user in XR traffic to prevent service interruption, reducing latency and to provide positive impact user experience.
Regarding claim 14, He discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein the configuration further comprises a mapping between each timer configuration and each different respective identifier of the set of identifiers.
Lohr from the same field of endeavor as He teaches the NE 102 configures a mapping between the set of timer configurations and the set of priority levels (equivalent to a set of identifiers). The NE 102 transmits the PDCP configuration IE 500 to the UE 104. Upon reception of a PDU and/or SDU for transmission at the PDCP entity, the UE 104 selects a timer configuration from the set of timer configuration based on a priority level of the PDU and/or SDU, see 0106.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ mapping between the set of timer configuration and the set of priority levels as taught by Lohr into the system of He. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement priority level as an identifer for a quality of service (QoS) flow (e.g., a radio bearer) for a user in XR traffic to prevent service interruption, reducing latency and to provide positive impact user experience.
Regarding claim 16, He discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein each timer configuration of the set of timer configuration is associated with a respective timer value.
Lohr from the same field of endeavor as He teaches the UE 104 initiates a timer corresponding to the selected timer configuration and having a time duration (value) indicated by the selected timer configuration, see 0074. In other words, Lohr can initiate a timer having a time duration for any selected timer configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a timer corresponding to the selected timer configuration and having a time duration (value) as taught by
Lohr into the system of He. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to
enable the UE to run the timer until successful delivery of the SDU is confirmed or until the timer expires.
Regarding claim 18, He discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein each timer configuration of the set of timer configurations is associated with a different respective quality of service flow.
Lohr from the same field of endeavor as He teaches the NE 102 transmits, to the UE 104, a PDCP configuration message indicating the set of timer configurations corresponding to the set of priority levels. The PDCP entity receives, from a higher layer, at least one SDU (e.g., PDCP SDU) for transmission (e.g., to the CN 106 and/or the NE 102). The SDU is associated with a priority level of the set of priority levels and a radio bearer and/or Qos Flow, see 0074.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a set of timer configuration and the SDU being associated with a priority level of the set of priority levels and a radio bearer and/or QoS flow taught by Lohr into the system of He. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement priority level for a quality of service (QoS) flow (e.g., a radio bearer) for a user in XR traffic to prevent service interruption, reducing latency and to provide positive impact user experience.
Regarding claim 19, He discloses all claimed limitations, except, wherein the configuration further comprises importance level information for each timer configuration of the set of timer configurations.
Lohr from the same field of endeavor as He discloses a UE for wireless communication to receive, from a radio access network (RAN), a configuration message for a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the UE, the configuration message indicating a set of timer configurations corresponding to a set of priority levels, see abstract and 0006.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a set of priority level associating with a set of timer configuration as taught by Lohr into the system of He. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement a priority level for a quality of service (QoS) flow (e.g., a radio bearer) for a user in XR traffic to prevent service interruption, reducing latency and to provide positive impact user experience.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable subject matter
9. Claim 11 is rejected based on its dependency, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yi et al. (US 2025/0374122); Yang et al. (US 2018/0205808)
are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights