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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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, 9-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by KANAMARLAPUDI et al. (2021/0251033, Corresponding to WO2021163506 as submitted in IDS, same assignee <QUALCOMM> but published more than a year ago than the EFD of the instant application), KANAMARLAPUDI hereinafter. KANAMARLAPUDI teaches all of the limitations of the specified claim with the following reasoning that follows.
Re. claims 1, 9 and 17, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches a method (Fig. 1-13 & ¶0113/¶0137) of operation of a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 4, UE 120a), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 4, 482) storing instructions executable (Fig. 4 & ¶0011) by one or more processors (Fig. 4, 480) of a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 4, UE 120a) to, an apparatus (Fig. 4, UE 120a) for wireless communication (Fig. 4) by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 4, UE 120a), the apparatus comprising: a processing system including one or more processors (Fig. 4, 480) and one or more memories (Fig. 4, 482) coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more processors including an application processor (Fig. 4 & ¶0113/¶0118-¶0119, also, see claims 17-18, 20 & 26) of the UE, the processing system configured to: receive, at the application processor from a modem of the UE, an indication of a data stall associated with the UE (Fig. 1-13 &¶0113 - aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques that may help quickly detect such stalling and perform recovery actions, whether the stalling is detected at the modem or application processor level. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0134 - Apart from recovery action in the modem, this information (e.g., information regarding the inactivity timer or the one or more recovery actions) can be indicated to a client (modem/AP/tethered client) or application for appropriate recovery action at an application level); and in accordance with the indication of the data stall, initiate one or more operations associated with a data stall detection and mitigation procedure (Fig. 1-13 & ¶0134 - appropriate recovery action may include closing and opening a transmission control protocol (TCP) session at the application level, triggering a multi-path TCP (MPTCP) kind of session, or restarting a connection at the application level. Additionally, in some cases, there may be additional in-band signaling at the application level for recovery, such as dynamically adjusting a coding rate or bandwidth.).
Re. claims 2, 10 and 18, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches claims 1, 9 and 17.
KANAMARLAPUDI further teaches wherein, in accordance with the one or more operations, the processing system is further configured to: release a data interface between the modem and the application processor; reestablish the data interface; initiate a radio resource control (RRC) reset operation (Fig. 1-13 & ¶0122: ¶0125 - if an inactivity timer (e.g., T_ul_inactivity or T_dl_inactivity) expires, the UE may take action to expedite recovery procedures. For example, if the T_ul_inactivity timer expired the UE may declare an RLF immediately and may expedite performing an RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure. In some cases, the UE may expedite the RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure, for example, if the reason for expiration of the T_ul_inactivity timer is one of the following: … (2) a lack of data transmission in UL or lack of data acknowledgement in DL (L2 Status, if needed). Examiner interprets that one of the claimed features to be mapped because of the presence of “one or more operations” and “Or” in the limitation); release a packet data unit (PDU) session associated with a network node; reestablish the PDU session; initiate a sub-system restart (SSR) associated with the modem; or initiate a reboot of the UE.
Re. claims 3, 11 and 19, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches claims 1, 9 and 17.
KANAMARLAPUDI further teaches wherein, in accordance with the one or more operations, the processing system is further configured to terminate a particular application executed by the application processor. (Fig. 1-13 & ¶0134 - the appropriate recovery action may include closing and opening a transmission control protocol (TCP) session at the application level, triggering a multi-path TCP (MPTCP) kind of session, or restarting a connection at the application level.).
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.
In 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMARLAPUDI, in view of PARRON et al. (2018/0176818), PARRON hereinafter.
Re. claims 4, 12 and 20, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches claims 3, 11 and 19.
Yet, KANAMARLAPUDI does not expressly teach wherein the processing system is further configured to determine, in accordance with one or more ranking criteria, a plurality of ranking values respectively associated with a plurality of applications executed by the application processor, the plurality of applications including the particular application, and to terminate the particular application in accordance with the plurality of ranking values.
However, in the analogous art, PARRON explicitly discloses wherein the processing system (Fig.3, 303/Fig. 5, 509) is further configured to determine, in accordance with one or more ranking criteria, a plurality of ranking values respectively associated with a plurality of applications executed by the application processor, the plurality of applications including the particular application, and to terminate the particular application in accordance with the plurality of ranking values. (Fig. 3 & ¶0034 - The communication terminal 300 further includes a controller 303 configured to initiate a reduction of upload data traffic belonging to a communication service of the assigned communication service class. Fig. 2-3 & ¶0035 - the communication terminal (e.g. including, as described with reference to FIG. 2, an application processor and a communication processor) reduces traffic depending on service type. This means that in case of a congestion situation, the communication terminal may reduce traffic belonging to certain services (such as data download or video) while keeping the amount of traffic for other services (such as speech data of a call) unaffected. The classifier 302 may for example select one or more communication service classes of a plurality of predefined service classes as communication service class(es) for which upload traffic is to be reduced. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0037 - An application and/or a connection manager may for example be allowed to reduce or stop low priority traffic in case of congestion before an overflow of the modem's transmission buffer is reached. For example, an Android connection manager or a Microsoft Windows connection manager may use a flow control indication from the modem to restrict/stop traffic of some specific service and one or more corresponding applications. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0038 - the communication terminal may serve different applications with different priorities running over the same IPC interface and/or connection. For instance, in case of a congestion, the communication terminal may block background data transfer and still allow a voice over IP call to continue, even if for a plurality of services data are flowing over the same IPC or even the same packet data network (PDN) connection. Thus, there is the possibility for a high priority service to continue despite the congestion situation in contrast to a blocking of all services when the IPC is completely blocked by flow control triggered in a congestion situation. Also, see ¶0161-¶0164 along with Fig. 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine KANAMARLAPUDI’s invention of a system and a method for detecting data inactivity and expediting recovery action in a wireless communication system to include PARRON’s invention of method and apparatus for handling upload traffic congestion in a wireless communication system, because it provides an efficient mechanism in handling a upload data traffic congestion situation, which allows a more gradual and service based flow control mechanism, resulting in avoiding stopping all data transmission over IPC <inter processor communication, an interface between application processor & communication processor, Fig.2> interface, the efficient mechanism prohibits any voice data getting blocked, results in an improved user experience for services like Voice over IP calls (VoLTE for instance) for a terminal operating in the wireless communication system. (¶0029-¶0030, PARRON)
Re. claims 5 and 13, KANAMARLAPUDI and PARRON teach claims 4 and 12.
KANAMARLAPUDI further teaches wherein the one or more ranking criteria include, for each application of the plurality of applications, one or more of an idle time associated with the application (Fig. 11 & ¶0115 - Operations 1100 begin, at 1102, by maintaining at least one inactivity timer to detect when uplink or downlink data transfer between the UE and network has stalled. Fig. 11 & ¶0116 - At 1104, the UE expedites one or more recovery actions if the inactivity expires due to one or more conditions. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0117 - the UE may maintain an uplink inactivity timer (T_ul_inactivity) and/or a downlink inactivity timer (T_dl_inactivity), Fig. 1-13 & ¶0120 - if no data is transmitted within a period of time defined by the T_ul_inactivity timer (e.g., before expiration) from the modem level of the UE, the UE may determine the reason behind no data being transmitted and look into further actions based on the reason. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0121 - Similarly, for DL traffic, when the T_dl_inactivity is started and when no data is received within a period of time defined by the T_dl_inactivity timer (e.g., before expiration), the UE may determine the reason behind no data being received and look into further actions based on the reason. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0123/¶0125 - if the T_ul_inactivity timer expired the UE may declare an RLF immediately and may expedite performing an RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure. In some cases, the UE may expedite the RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure, for example, if the reason for expiration of the T_ul_inactivity timer is one of the following: a lack of data transmission in UL. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0127/¶0128-¶0129 - Similarly, if the T_dl_inactivity expired, the UE may declare an RLF immediately and expedite performance of the RRC_IDLE or RRC Connection procedure…the UE may expedite the RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure, for example, if the reason for expiration of the T_dl_inactivity timer is one of the following: a DL status is not received for UL data at Layer 2; DL traffic (e.g., transmission control protocol (TCP) acknowledgement (ACK) or TCP response or App response) are not received within the time period defined by the T_dl_inactivity timer. Also, ¶0132 discloses an application ranking criteria and a direct impact on the mitigation; and, ¶0134 discloses closing and opening a transmission control protocol (TCP) session at the application level. Examiner interprets that one of the claimed features to be mapped because of the presence of “Or” in the limitation), a memory utilization associated with the application, or a priority level associated with the application. (
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMARLAPUDI, in view of Rahman et al. (2023/0224206), Rahman hereinafter.
Re. claims 6 and 14, KANAMARLAPUDI teaches claims 1 and 9.
Yet, KANAMARLAPUDI does not expressly teach wherein the processing system is further configured to detect one or more conditions indicating that the data stall is associated with the application processor instead of the modem.
However, in the analogous art, Rahman explicitly discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to detect one or more conditions indicating that the data stall is associated with the application processor instead of the modem. (Fig. 1-5 & ¶0009 - The packet rate monitor may monitor the rate at which these IP packets are received and in cases of a slow down in the rate (e.g., the packet rate falls below a predefined threshold), may determine that the local application and/or the UE is about to experience a data stall event. That is, the local application will not have the necessary IP packet to continue to render the content being consumed, or otherwise being interacted with, by the user. Fig. 1-5 & ¶0020 - The packet rate monitor 126 may monitor the rate at which these IP packets are received and in cases of a slowdown in the rate (e.g., the packet rate falls below a predefined threshold), may determine that the first local application 114 and/or the UE 102 is about to experience a data stall event. That is, the first local application 114 will not have the necessary IP packets to continue to render the content being consumed, or otherwise being interacted with, by the user. Fig. 1-5 & ¶0021 - once the packet rate has dropped below a threshold value, the connectivity manager application 112 may start the timer 130 to determine when the UE 102 should attempt to reattach and/or reregister with a new node of the network and/or a different network, such as the second node 106. ….In some cases, the connectivity manager application 112 may be configured to instruct a MODEM of the UE 102 to detach from the first node 104 and reattach and/or reregister with a second node 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine KANAMARLAPUDI’s invention of a system and a method for detecting data inactivity and expediting recovery action in a wireless communication system to include Rahman’s invention of method and apparatus for recovery from data stall event in a multi-network environment, because it provides an efficient mode of operation of a User Equipment (UE) as the UE moves through different types of network coverages, while traffic on the serving network changes, paves the way in avoiding any necessities of the power of the UE getting turned on and off along with refraining from straining radio resources in the overloaded multi-network environment. (¶0012, Rahman)
Re. claims 7 and 15, KANAMARLAPUDI and Rahman teach claims 6 and 14.
KANAMARLAPUDI further teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to detect the one or more conditions in accordance with one or more first parameters associated with the modem satisfying one or more modem related criteria. (Fig. 11 & ¶0115 - Operations 1100 begin, at 1102, by maintaining at least one inactivity timer to detect when uplink or downlink data transfer between the UE and network has stalled. Fig. 11 & ¶0116 - At 1104, the UE expedites one or more recovery actions if the inactivity expires due to one or more conditions. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0117 - the UE may maintain an uplink inactivity timer (T_ul_inactivity) and/or a downlink inactivity timer (T_dl_inactivity), Fig. 1-13 & ¶0120 - if no data is transmitted within a period of time defined by the T_ul_inactivity timer (e.g., before expiration) from the modem level of the UE, the UE may determine the reason behind no data being transmitted and look into further actions based on the reason. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0121 - Similarly, for DL traffic, when the T_dl_inactivity is started and when no data is received within a period of time defined by the T_dl_inactivity timer (e.g., before expiration), the UE may determine the reason behind no data being received and look into further actions based on the reason. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0123/¶0125 - if the T_ul_inactivity timer expired the UE may declare an RLF immediately and may expedite performing an RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure. In some cases, the UE may expedite the RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure, for example, if the reason for expiration of the T_ul_inactivity timer is one of the following: a lack of data transmission in UL. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0127/¶0128-¶0129 - Similarly, if the T_dl_inactivity expired, the UE may declare an RLF immediately and expedite performance of the RRC_IDLE or RRC Connection procedure…the UE may expedite the RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure, for example, if the reason for expiration of the T_dl_inactivity timer is one of the following: a DL status is not received for UL data at Layer 2; DL traffic (e.g., transmission control protocol (TCP) acknowledgement (ACK) or TCP response or App response) are not received within the time period defined by the T_dl_inactivity timer. In other words, there exists a plurality of parameters (e.g., T_ul_inactivity timer & T_dl_inactivity) which are associated with modem and application processor satisfying one or more modem/one or more application processor related criteria as disclosed supra).
Re. claims 8 and 16, KANAMARLAPUDI and Rahman teach claims 7 and 15.
KANAMARLAPUDI further teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to detect the one or more conditions in accordance with one or more second parameters associated with the application processor satisfying one or more application processor related criteria. (Fig. 11 & ¶0115 - Operations 1100 begin, at 1102, by maintaining at least one inactivity timer to detect when uplink or downlink data transfer between the UE and network has stalled. Fig. 11 & ¶0116 - At 1104, the UE expedites one or more recovery actions if the inactivity expires due to one or more conditions. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0117 - the UE may maintain an uplink inactivity timer (T_ul_inactivity) and/or a downlink inactivity timer (T_dl_inactivity), Fig. 1-13 & ¶0120 - if no data is transmitted within a period of time defined by the T_ul_inactivity timer (e.g., before expiration) from the modem level of the UE, the UE may determine the reason behind no data being transmitted and look into further actions based on the reason. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0121 - Similarly, for DL traffic, when the T_dl_inactivity is started and when no data is received within a period of time defined by the T_dl_inactivity timer (e.g., before expiration), the UE may determine the reason behind no data being received and look into further actions based on the reason. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0123/¶0125 - if the T_ul_inactivity timer expired the UE may declare an RLF immediately and may expedite performing an RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure. In some cases, the UE may expedite the RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure, for example, if the reason for expiration of the T_ul_inactivity timer is one of the following: a lack of data transmission in UL. Fig. 1-13 & ¶0127/¶0128-¶0129 - Similarly, if the T_dl_inactivity expired, the UE may declare an RLF immediately and expedite performance of the RRC_IDLE or RRC Connection procedure…the UE may expedite the RRC_IDLE or RRC connection procedure, for example, if the reason for expiration of the T_dl_inactivity timer is one of the following: a DL status is not received for UL data at Layer 2; DL traffic (e.g., transmission control protocol (TCP) acknowledgement (ACK) or TCP response or App response) are not received within the time period defined by the T_dl_inactivity timer. In other words, there exists a plurality of parameters (e.g., T_ul_inactivity timer & T_dl_inactivity) which are associated with modem and application processor satisfying one or more modem/one or more application processor related criteria as disclosed supra).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al. (2012/0092991); See Abstract, ¶0004, ¶0006-¶0007, ¶0024-¶0027, ¶0048-¶0051, ¶0055-¶0070 along with Fig. 1-10.
MA et al. (2022/0286899); See ¶0005-¶0015, ¶0062-¶0066, ¶0097-¶0106, ¶0189-¶0220 along with Fig. 1-18.
MobiCom Poster: Eliminating Aborted Data Delivery Over Cellular Links; Andrei Gurtov
gurtov@cs.helsinki.fi; University of Helsinki, Finland and ICSI, Berkeley, USA. Published: 01 October, 2003. See pages 53-54.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUL CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0485. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9 AM- 6 PM EST (Friday Var.).
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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.
/MOHAMMED S CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights