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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to be a complete published patent document rather than a properly formatted standalone abstract page as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 2009/0116399) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0199251).
Regarding claim 1, Ho teaches a method for performing operations for a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity of a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising (Paragraphs [0032]; [0067] describes processor 806 of mobile device 800 as connected to PDCP module 202, which manages PDCP-layer functions):
receiving at least one PDCP service data unit (SDU) related to an on-time service from an upper layer with starting at least one delay timer of the at least one PDCP SDU for ensuring an arrival of the at least one PDCP SDU within a required time duration at a reception end (Paragraphs [0038]; [0041]; [0043]; [0044] describes a data packet being obtained by the PDCP module 202 from an upper layer where the upper layer originates from data application, voice over IP applications. Describes these same data packets as having quality of service (QoS) requirements and limited delay time meaning if the packet takes too long, it’s no longer useful once it reaches the receiver. The claim doesn’t define what “on-time service” means, so that term can cover any service that has some kind of deadline or time limit attached to it );
Ho doesn’t teach generating at least one PDCP protocol data unit (PDU) related to the at least one PDCP SDU based on the delay timer expiring;
However, in analogous art Kim teaches generating at least one PDCP protocol data unit (PDU) related to the at least one PDCP SDU based on the delay timer expiring (Paragraph [0104] describes generating a PDCP PDU including a PDCP header for the PDCP SDU if a timer corresponding to the PDCP SDU expires. (based on the delay timer expiring));
Ho teaches and submitting the at least one PDCP PDU to a lower layer (Paragraphs [0042]; [0044] describes forwarding PDCP PDU to a lower layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Ho to incorporate the teachings of Kim’s delay timer expiration to improve reliability, reduce unnecessary packet discard and associated retransmission/window-stalling overhead (Kim [0004]).
Claims 6, 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 respectively.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Kim in further view Hong et al. (US 20190268799).
Regarding claim 2, Ho and Kim don’t teach further comprising: based on the delay timer being running, calculating PDCP data volume for a buffer status report (BSR) by excluding the at least one PDCP SDU.
However, in analogous art Hong teaches further comprising: based on the delay timer being running, calculating PDCP data volume for a buffer status report (BSR) by excluding the at least one PDCP SDU (Paragraphs [0216]-[0218] describes a UE resident timer (“duplicate transmission activation timer”/ “timer for deactivating the duplicate transmission”) whose running state is the trigger condition that determines how many copies of a PDCP SDU are submitted to the lower layers, this is a delay timer because it delays/gates when the second copy of the PDCP SDU (associated with the second RLC entity ) is submitted for transmission. When the timer is not running (expired), the PDCP entity submits the message through only one transmission path. The PDCP SDU that would otherwise have gone to the second RLC entity is excluded from the path because the PDCP data volume reported in the BSR is built from what the PDCP/RLC entities have ordered for transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Ho in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Hong transmitting buffer status report and supporting duplicate transmission to improve reliability (Hong, Paragraph [0206]).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 respectively.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Kim in further view Ishii (US 20110038264).
Regarding claim 3, Ho and Kim don’t teach wherein the at least one delay timer is configured based on a type of the at least one PDCP SDU.
In analogous art Ishii, teaches wherein the at least one delay timer is configured based on a type of the at least one PDCP SDU (Paragraphs [0100]; [0146]; [0207] describes the delay timer’s configuration varies depending on the type of data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Ho in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Ishii delay timer to improve frequency efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Ho, Kim and Ishii, Ishii teaches further comprising: based on receiving the at least one PDCP SDU from the upper layer, starting at least one discard timer of the at least one PDCP SDU (Paragraphs [0127]; [0141] describes receiving PDCP SDU from the upper layer. Paragraphs [0142]; [0146] based on receiving PDCP SDU, the discard timer is started),
wherein a duration of the at least one discard timer is greater than a duration of the at least one delay timer (Paragraphs [0146]; [0206] describes the discard timer’s duration is greater than the delay timer’s duration ).
Claim 3 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 respectively.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9 respectively.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Kim in further view of Kang et al. (US 20250247838).
Regarding claim 5, Ho and Kim don’t teach further comprising: based on the delay timer expiring, starting at least one discard timer of the at least one PDCP SDU, wherein the at least one discard timer expires before generating the at least one PDCP PDU, the at least one PDCP SDU is discarded.
However, in analogous art Kang teaches further comprising: based on the delay timer expiring, starting at least one discard timer of the at least one PDCP SDU (Paragraphs [0058]; [0097] describes the “RLC entity keeps track of the timer using the indicated value” a second timer maintained at the RLC entity triggered by the delay budget value delivered upon the CU’s timer (starting at least one discard timer based on the delay timer expiring)),
wherein the at least one discard timer expires before generating the at least one PDCP PDU, the at least one PDCP SDU is discarded (Paragraphs [0058]; [0097] describes that the timer expires before the associated data has been transmitted (before the PDCP PDU corresponding to that SDU has been generated/sent)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Ho in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Kang PDCP PDUs with ADU-level information and signals grouping/timer information to the DU to improve data rate, latency and power consumption.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL KIDANE whose telephone number is (571)270-3642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F8:30-5.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Chandrahas B Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/M.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights