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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on March 16, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 13-18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 11, and 12 have be cancelled. Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 16, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated December 15, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant amended the Title and Abstract of the invention. Therefore, the previous objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant amended claims 2-7 and 12-17. Therefore, the previous objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant argues, in page 13 of the Remarks, “In addressing claim 2, the Office Action cites Gebert at paragraph [0107] and FIGs. 6, 9 and 12B as allegedly disclosing these features. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Gebert discloses node 1, a UE, inserts a timestamp when forwarding a packet. However, Gebert does not disclose node 2, a base station, inserting a timestamp.”
In response, the claim does not recite the base station inserting the timestamp.
Applicant argues, in page 14 of the Remarks, “Gebert also fails to disclose "[determining] the allowable time of delay by comparing a sum of the first delay time and the second delay time with a target delay time."”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown, in Fig. 9, the node N calculates current packet delay based on the difference between current time and the time stamp T1 inserted by the UE. Therefore, current packet delay at the node N is sum of packet delay from the UE to the base station and packet delay from the base station to the Node N. Subsequently, the allowable time of delay is determined based on comparing the current packet delay to max allowed latency.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gebert et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20220022088 A1), hereinafter, Gebert.
Regarding claim 1:
Gebert teaches:
A packet transfer apparatus, comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor (Fig. 6 shows node N (packet transfer apparatus)):
acquiring an uplink packet received from a terminal apparatus (Fig. 6 shows the node N receives a uplink data packet from node 1(terminal device));
determining, with reference to time information included in header information of the uplink packet, an allowable time of delay of the uplink packet ( Fig. 6 shows max packet delay budget. Paragraph 0107 discloses determining, with reference to the timestamp (time information) included in the packet, allowable time of the delay as the difference between max packet delay budget and current packet delay. Fig. 12(B) shows GTP-U timestamp extension header with timestamps); and
determining, on the basis of the allowable time of delay, an order of transmission of the uplink packet (paragraph 0107 discloses buffering or discarding the packet based on the difference between max packet delay budget and current packet delay. Also see Fig. 9).
wherein in the determining of the allowable time of delay, the at least one processor:
specifies a first delay time with reference to UL delay result information included in the header information, the first delay time being a time of delay in a path from the terminal apparatus to a base station (Fig. 6 shows latency (firs delay time) being a time of delay in path from the node 1 to node 2 (base station). Fig. 12(B) shows GTP-U timestamp extension header carries timestamps),
specifies a second delay time with reference to a UL transmission timestamp included in the header information and a receipt time at which the uplink packet is received by the packet transfer apparatus, the second delay time being a time of delay in a path from the base station to the packet transfer apparatus (Fig. 6 shows latency (second delay time) being a time of delay in path from the node 2 to node N. Fig. 7 shows timestamp T1 (UL transmission timestamp) inserted in the packet for calculation of time delay), and
determines the allowable time of delay by comparing a sum of the first delay time and the second delay time with a target delay time (Fig. 9 shows calculating current packet delay as the sum of delay from node 1 and node N. Paragraph 0107 discloses determining allowable time of the delay as the difference between max packet delay budget (target delay time) and current packet delay).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gebert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Gebert further teaches wherein in the determining of the allowable time of delay, the at least one processor: determines that the allowable time of delay is a value obtained by subtracting, from the target delay time, the sum of the first delay time and the second delay time (paragraph 0107 discloses determining allowable time of the delay as the difference between max packet delay budget (target delay time) and current packet delay).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gebert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Gebert further teaches wherein in the determining of the order of transmission, the at least one processor: reverses an order of transmission of uplink packets one of which is earlier in the order of transmission and has a relatively long allowable time of delay and the other of which is later in the order of transmission and has a relatively short allowable time of delay (Fig. 6 shows defining minimum latency. Fig. 9 shows the order of the packets based on how large difference between current delay and max allowed latency. Packet with current latency smaller than the minimum latency, i.e. allowable latency is long, is put on the buffer and packet with current latency higher than the minimum latency deliver for transmission)
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gebert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Gebert further teaches wherein the header information of the uplink packet is information given to a GTP extension header (Fig. 12(B) shows GTP-U timestamp extension header with timestamps).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed towards a method performed by the packet transfer apparatus of the claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is directed towards a method performed by the packet transfer apparatus of the claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is directed towards a method performed by the packet transfer apparatus of the claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is directed towards a method performed by the packet transfer apparatus of the claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 10 is directed towards a non-transitory storage medium, storing therein a program for causing a computer to perform the method of claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert in view of Eckert et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20210297362 A1), hereinafter, Eckert.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Gebert teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as shown above.
Gebert does not teach further comprising a plurality of transmission queues which are provided so as to correspond to priorities of packets and in each of which a packet to be transmitted is stored, wherein in the determining of the order of transmission, the at least one processor: carries out scheduling in an order thus reversed of the uplink packets and stores each of the uplink packets in any one of the plurality of transmission queues.
Eckert teaches further comprising a plurality of transmission queues which are provided so as to correspond to priorities of packets and in each of which a packet to be transmitted is stored, wherein in the determining of the order of transmission, the at least one processor: carries out scheduling in an order thus reversed of the uplink packets and stores each of the uplink packets in any one of the plurality of transmission queues (Fig. 13 shows plurality of queues 1341 for storing packet based on priority as explained in paragraphs 0134 and 0135. Also see paragraph 0139 stating “The node 1411 maintains, at 1411, one or more queues as represented at 841, 1341, and 450, for example. Based on the parameters from 1409 (one or more of tqmin, tqmax, and lqprio), a queuing rank is determined for a packet (as illustrated in 841 and, for rank2, in 1341) at 1413.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gebert to incorporate the teaches of Eckert about priority queues corresponds on the priory of packet based on the remaining allowed time of the packet. One would be motivated to do that to effectively transmit the packets by ordering transmission of the packets based remaining delay budget while maintaining the latency service level objective (see paragraphs 0003, 0006, and 0044 of Eckert).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Gebert in view of Eckert teach all the limitations of claim 5 as shown above.
Gebert does not teach wherein in the determining of the order of transmission, the at least one processor: changes a priority pre-given to an uplink packet to a higher priority in a case where an allowable time of delay of the uplink packet is not more than a predetermined value.
Eckert teaches wherein in the determining of the order of transmission, the at least one processor: changes a priority pre-given to an uplink packet to a higher priority in a case where an allowable time of delay of the uplink packet is not more than a predetermined value (paragraph 0135 discloses giving highest priority to the packet with lowest iqprio as stated “The de-queuing function attempts, at each point in time when it can send a packet, to dequeue the highest priority (lowest lqprio value) head of PIFO packet for which tqmin tnow tqmax.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gebert to incorporate the teaches of Eckert about giving highest priority to the packet with lowest iqprio. One would be motivated to do that to effectively transmit the packets by ordering transmission of the packets based remaining delay budget while maintaining the latency service level objective (see paragraph 0003, 0006, 0044 of Eckert).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Gebert in view of Eckert teach all the limitations of claim 6 as shown above.
Gebert does not teach wherein in the determining of the order of transmission, the at least one processor stores the uplink packet in a transmission queue corresponding to the higher priority to which the priority has been changed.
Eckert teaches wherein in the determining of the order of transmission, the at least one processor stores the uplink packet in a transmission queue corresponding to the higher priority to which the priority has been changed (paragraph 0139 discloses storing packet in the highest priority queue based on the lower remaining delay budget of the packet as stated “For embodiments with multiple queues for the packets, as illustrated in 1341, a queue is determined for the packet at 1415, where in the example illustrated in FIG. 13 this can be based on rank1. Once the queue and place within the queue are determined, the packet is entered into the determined queue and location at 1417.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gebert to incorporate the teaches of Eckert about storing packet in the highest priority queue based on the lower remaining delay budget of the packet. One would be motivated to do that to effectively transmit the packets by ordering transmission of the packets based remaining delay budget while maintaining the latency service level objective (see paragraph 0003, 0006, 0044 of Eckert).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Gebert in view of Eckert teach all the limitations of claim 5 as shown above.
Gebert does not teach wherein, in the determining of the order of transmission, in a case where the allowable time of delay of an uplink packet is not more than a predetermined value and a transmission queue corresponding to a priority higher than a priority pre-given to the uplink packet is vacant, the at least one processor changes the priority of the uplink packet to the higher priority and stores the uplink packet in the transmission queue corresponding to the higher priority.
Eckert teaches wherein, in the determining of the order of transmission, in a case where the allowable time of delay of an uplink packet is not more than a predetermined value and a transmission queue corresponding to a priority higher than a priority pre-given to the uplink packet is vacant, the at least one processor changes the priority of the uplink packet to the higher priority and stores the uplink packet in the transmission queue corresponding to the higher priority (paragraph 0139 discloses determining priority of the packet based tqmin, tqmax, and lqprio and storing the packet in the queue corresponds determined priority as stated “The node 1411 maintains, at 1411, one or more queues as represented at 841, 1341, and 450, for example. Based on the parameters from 1409 (one or more of tqmin, tqmax, and lqprio), a queuing rank is determined for a packet (as illustrated in 841 and, for rank2, in 1341) at 1413. For embodiments with multiple queues for the packets, as illustrated in 1341, a queue is determined for the packet at 1415, where in the example illustrated in FIG. 13 this can be based on rank1. Once the queue and place within the queue are determined, the packet is entered into the determined queue and location at 1417.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gebert to incorporate the teaches of Eckert about determining priority of the packet based tqmin, tqmax, and lqprio and storing the packet in the queue corresponds determined priority. One would be motivated to do that to effectively transmit the packets by ordering transmission of the packets based remaining delay budget while maintaining the latency service level objective (see paragraph 0003, 0006, 0044 of Eckert).
Claim 15 is directed towards a method performed by the packet transfer apparatus of the claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a method performed by the packet transfer apparatus of the claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is directed towards a method performed by the packet transfer apparatus of the claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is directed towards a method performed by the packet transfer apparatus of the claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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 KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
May 14, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights