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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In response to restriction requirement, Group I (claims 1-13 and 20) was elected without traverse.
This action is responsive to claims filed on January 20, 2026. Claims 14-19 have been canceled. Claims 21-26 have been newly added. Claims 1-13 and 20-26 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Examiner's note: It is recommended to amend the abstract to briefly describe the claimed invention according to the above guidelines.
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 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 pre-AIA 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 1-13 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuo et al “Kuo”, US-PGPub. No. 20260006489.
As per claims 1, 20 and 26, Kuo teaches a method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0025], [0061], [0070], [0075]), comprising:
one or more memories (Fig. 3 – memory 306, Paragraph(s) [0081]); and
one or more processors (Fig. 3 – processor(s) 302 , Paragraph(s) [0081]), coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to:
receive an indication of a buffer size threshold associated with a buffer of the UE (Paragraph(s) [0013]; determining whether a buffer size of a logical channel (LCH) or a LCH group (LCG) carrying the first PDU set is below a particular threshold. Kuo further teaches receiving an indication from a wireless communication network to activate a PDU set importance (PSI)-based discarding mechanism (Paragraph(s) [0006])); and
discard one or more protocol data units (PDUs) from the buffer based at least in part on a buffer size of the buffer satisfying the buffer size threshold (Paragraph(s) [0008], [0148]; the UE may apply either inter-PDU set behavior or intra-PDU set behavior based on whether the overall buffer size of one or more Logical Channel (LCH) or LCH Group (LCG) satisfies a predetermined threshold. For example, if the buffer size already exceeds a predetermined threshold, then the UE may directly discard the PDUs of the PDU set, according to intra-PDU set behavior, to immediately alleviate congestion. However, if the overall buffer size of the applicable one or more LCH or LCG does not satisfy the predetermined threshold, then the UE may apply inter-PDU set behavior).
As per claims 2 and 21, Kuo teaches wherein to discard the one or more PDUs, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to discard the one or more PDUs based at least in part on a PDU set importance (PSI) value (Paragraph(s) [0006], [0019]; receiving an indication from a wireless communication network to activate a PDU set importance (PSI)-based discarding mechanism).
As per claims 3 and 22, Kuo teaches wherein to discard the one or more PDUs, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to discard at least one of the one or more PDUs having a lowest PSI value (Paragraph(s) [0097]).
As per claims 4 and 23, Kuo teaches wherein to discard the one or more PDUs, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to discard the one or more PDUs based at least in part on a remaining time of each of the one or more PDUs (Paragraph(s) [0144], [0150]).
As per claims 5 and 24, Kuo teaches wherein each remaining time is associated with a timer value (Paragraph(s) [0144]).
As per claims 6 and 25, Kuo teaches wherein to discard the one or more PDUs, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to discard at least one of the one or more PDUs having a shortest remaining time (Paragraph(s) [0165]).
As per claim 7, Kuo teaches wherein the buffer size threshold is associated with a bandwidth available at a data radio bearer (Paragraph(s) [0103], [0148])
As per claim 8, Kuo teaches wherein to discard the one or more PDUs, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to discard the one or more PDUs based at least in part on the receiving the indication (Paragraph(s) [0006], [0008]).
As per claim 9, Kuo teaches wherein to receive the indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to receive the indication in a medium access control control element (MAC CE), a control PDU, or a radio resource control message (Paragraph(s) [0103]).
As per claim 10, Kuo teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to continue to discard PDUs until the buffer size does not satisfy the buffer size threshold (Paragraph(s) [0148]).
As per claim 11, Kuo teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to receive an activation message that activates congestion-based discarding, and wherein to discard the one or more PDUs, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to discard the one or more PDUs based at least in part on the activation message (Paragraph(s) [0008], [0100]).
As per claim 12, Kuo teaches wherein to receive the activation message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to receive the activation message in a medium access control control element (MAC CE), a control PDU, or a radio resource control message (Paragraph(s) [0103]; dedicated signaling from the network for activating/deactivating the PSI-based discarding mechanism might be carried in an RRC message, a PDCP control PDU, a MAC CE, or other appropriate messaging mechanism).
As per claims 13, Kuo teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to:
receive a deactivation message that deactivates congestion-based discarding (Paragraph(s) [0083], [0117]); and
stop the discarding of the one or more PDUs based at least in part on the deactivation message (Paragraph(s) [0102], [0117]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454