CTNF 18/835,961 CTNF 80471 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. 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 07-30-02 AIA 2. 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. 07-34-01 3. Claims 21-40 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. Independent claim 21 recites “PDU set of the subset” in line 6 and in line 10, and independent claim 31 likewise recites “PDU set of the subset” in line 7 and in line 11, which are unclear, because a subset belongs to a set, rather than vice versa. Each of these claims is interpreted such that “set” is removed from each instance of “set of the subset” such that that portion of the claim reads “PDU of the subset”. Furthermore, claim 21 recites “multiplex PDU sets of the selected subset of the LCHs” in line 11, and claim 31 likewise recites “multiplexing PDU sets of the selected subset of the LCHs” in line 12, which are unclear, because this limitation appears to state that sets of PDUs belong to a subset of LCHs (PDUs being distinct from LCHs), and furthermore, “PDU sets” contradicts “the one or more PDU sets” that appears in the immediately preceding limitation. Each of these claims is interpreted such that “PDU sets” refers to “the one or more PDU sets” and such that “of the” means “associated with the”. Claims 22-30 each depend on claim 21, and claims 32-40 each depend on claim 31, and therefore each of these claims is also indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (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. 07-20-aia AIA 5. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 21, 23-26, 31, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0254117 (hereinafter Chen), in view of Hiramatsu et al., WO 2019167228 A1 (hereinafter Hiramatsu) . Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor (disclosed is a communication device, comprising a processor, in the form of a UE that transmits signals to and receives signals from a radio access network, according to [0007], [0033]-[0034]) configured to: receive, from a network, configuration information comprising a threshold value associated with one or more protocol data unit (PDU) sets (a base station configures the UE with a PDU discard timer value via a duplication configuration, according to [0164], whereby the duplication information introduces various PDU types [“protocol data unit (PDU) sets”], according to [0157]); determine one or more PDU sets to be transmitted, wherein each PDU set of the one or more PDU sets is associated with one or more logical channels (LCHs) (a PDU type field of the duplication information specifies which PDU type the PDU discard timer is for, according to [0180], [0184], whereby the various duplicated PDCP PDUs are each associated with a logical channel, according to [0043]-[0044]); determine a subset of the one or more PDU sets, wherein each PDU of the subset of the one or more PDU sets is associated with a respective remaining time value that is less than the threshold value (there are a plurality of discard timers, with each discard timer being associated with a corresponding group of PDUs, whereby PDUs are discarded upon expiration of their associated discard timer (which means that they are not discarded prior to expiration of the associated discard timer [“a respective remaining time value that is less than the threshold value”]), according to [0161]-[0163]); select a subset of the LCHs, wherein each LCH of the subset of LCHs comprises at least one PDU of the subset of the one or more PDU sets (there is a plurality of logical channels available, each logical channel being associated with one or more PDUs, according to [0043]-[0044]). Chen does not expressly disclose that the processor is configured to multiplex PDU sets of the selected subset of the LCHs into one or more transport blocks (TBs); and transmit the TBs. Hiramatsu discloses that the processor is configured to multiplex PDU sets of the selected subset of the LCHs into one or more transport blocks (TBs) (an RLC-PDU (an RLC entity corresponds to a logical channel) is multiplexed onto a TB, according to page 11 lines 35-41); and transmit the TBs (TBs are transmitted, according to page 11 lines 41-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Hiramatsu such that the processor is configured to multiplex PDU sets of the selected subset of the LCHs into one or more transport blocks (TBs); and transmit the TBs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent an increase in transmission delay and wireless resource waste (Hiramatsu: Abstract). Claim 31 recites the method (Chen discloses a method according to which the communication device operates, according to Abstract) according to which the WTRU recited in claim 21 operates, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 21. Regarding claim 23, the combination of Chen and Hiramatsu discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Chen discloses that the threshold value is a delay threshold value (the threshold value is a PDU discard timer value, according to [0164]). Regarding claim 24, the combination of Chen and Hiramatsu discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Chen discloses that the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the network, an indication associated with the determined subset of the one or more PDU sets (the UE transmits a duplication status report, comprising information on a PDU associated with said UE, to the network, according to [0049]-[0050]); and receive, from the network, a resource grant (the UE receives an uplink resource allocation from the base station, according to [0037], [0120]). Regarding claim 25, the combination of Chen and Hiramatsu discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Chen discloses that the indication associated with the PDU sets is transmitted via one or more of a buffer status report (BSR), a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), or uplink control information (UCI) (the duplication status report is a MAC CE, according to [0089]). Regarding claim 26, the combination of Chen and Hiramatsu discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Chen discloses that the resource grant comprises at least one of a dynamic grant (DG) and a configured grant (CG) (the uplink resource allocation is received via duplication assistance information, according to [0120], whereby said duplication assistance information is a dynamic configuration, according to [0166]). Claims 33-36 do not differ substantively from claims 23-26, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claims 23-26, respectively . 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim s 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hiramatsu as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, further in view of Kanamarlapudi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0329620 (hereinafter Kanamarlapudi) . Regarding claim 22, the combination of Chen and Hiramatsu discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Neither Chen nor Hiramatsu expressly discloses that the configuration information further comprises a first logical channel prioritization (LCP) configuration and a second LCP configuration, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to use the first LCP configuration or the second LCP configuration for transmitting the one or more PDU sets. Kanamarlapudi discloses that the configuration information further comprises a first logical channel prioritization (LCP) configuration and a second LCP configuration, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to use the first LCP configuration or the second LCP configuration for transmitting the one or more PDU sets (a base station provides parameters to a UE that said UE uses to autonomously select between a first LCP configuration and a second LCP configuration (whereby LCP is used for PDU transmission, according to [0080]), according to [0103], [0111]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen as modified by Hiramatsu with Kanamarlapudi such that the configuration information further comprises a first logical channel prioritization (LCP) configuration and a second LCP configuration, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to use the first LCP configuration or the second LCP configuration for transmitting the one or more PDU sets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate improved resource allocation efficiency (Kanamarlapudi: [0022]). Claim 32 does not differ substantively from claim 22, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 22 . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim s 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hiramatsu as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, further in view of Dhanda et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0122070 (hereinafter Dhanda) . Regarding claim 27, the combination of Chen and Hiramatsu discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Neither Chen nor Hiramatsu expressly discloses that the configuration information further comprises a second threshold value associated with one or more protocol data unit (PDU) sets, wherein the second threshold value comprises a payload size threshold. Dhanda discloses that the configuration information further comprises a second threshold value associated with one or more protocol data unit (PDU) sets, wherein the second threshold value comprises a payload size threshold (disclosed is a payload size threshold for MAC PDUs, according to [0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen as modified by Hiramatsu with Dhanda such that the configuration information further comprises a second threshold value associated with one or more protocol data unit (PDU) sets, wherein the second threshold value comprises a payload size threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the efficient use of wireless resources and conserve UE power (Dhanda: [0088]). Claim 37 does not differ substantively from claim 27, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 27 . 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim s 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hiramatsu as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, further in view of Kwon et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0127100 (hereinafter Kwon) . Regarding claim 29, the combination of Chen and Hiramatsu discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Neither Chen nor Hiramatsu expressly discloses that the processor being configured to determine the one or more PDU sets to be transmitted comprises the processor being configured to receive the one or more PDU sets from a higher layer. Kwon discloses that the processor being configured to determine the one or more PDU sets to be transmitted comprises the processor being configured to receive the one or more PDU sets from a higher layer (a PDU is received from a higher layer, whereupon header repacking is performed, and said PDU is then transmitted on a lower layer, according to [0130]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen as modified by Hiramatsu with Kwon such that the processor being configured to determine the one or more PDU sets to be transmitted comprises the processor being configured to receive the one or more PDU sets from a higher layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve transmission efficiency and reduce packet processing overhead (Kwon: [0005]-[0006]). Claim 39 does not differ substantively from claim 29, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 29 . 07-21-aia AIA 12. Claim s 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hiramatsu as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, further in view of Rao et al., WO 2021236951 A2 (hereinafter Rao) . Regarding claim 30, the combination of Chen and Hiramatsu discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Neither Chen nor Hiramatsu expressly discloses that the processor being configured to determine a subset of the one or more PDU sets comprises the processor being configured to: determine, for each PDU set of the one or more PDU sets, a respective remaining time value associated with the PDU set based on respective quality of service (QOS) markings; and select each PDU set of the one or more PDU sets that has a respective remaining time value that is lower than the threshold value for inclusion in the subset. Rao discloses that the processor being configured to determine a subset of the one or more PDU sets comprises the processor being configured to: determine, for each PDU set of the one or more PDU sets, a respective remaining time value associated with the PDU set based on respective quality of service (QOS) markings (for a set of PDUs, the expected remaining time available at a relay WTRU is determined based on QoS information, according to [0194]); and select each PDU set of the one or more PDU sets that has a respective remaining time value that is lower than the threshold value for inclusion in the subset (the set of PDUs has remaining time available and is sent to the relay WTRU (and therefore are included), according to [0194]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen as modified by Hiramatsu with Rao such that the processor being configured to determine a subset of the one or more PDU sets comprises the processor being configured to: determine, for each PDU set of the one or more PDU sets, a respective remaining time value associated with the PDU set based on respective quality of service (QOS) markings; and select each PDU set of the one or more PDU sets that has a respective remaining time value that is lower than the threshold value for inclusion in the subset. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate end-to-end quality of service (Rao: [0008]). Claim 40 does not differ substantively from claim 30, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 30. Allowable Subject Matter 13. Claims 28 and 38 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 if the aforementioned 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome. Conclusion 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time. 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 at 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 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. /MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 2 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 3 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 4 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 5 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 6 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 7 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 8 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 9 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 10 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 11 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 12 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 13 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/835,961 Page 14 Art Unit: 2645
Prosecution Insights