DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 1-8, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al. (US 2017/0310421, “Olsson”) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2023/0133908, “Kumar”).
Regarding claim 1, Olsson discloses a transmitter device for wireless communication, comprising:
- one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to (See Fig.13, a processor and a memory):
- segment a radio link control (RLC) unacknowledged mode (UM) packet into a first RLC UM protocol data unit (PDU) and a second RLC UM PDU for transmission via a carrier component (CC) of a plurality of CCs (See 203 Fig.3, divide RLC UM PDU into segmented RLC UM PDUs and transmit the segmented RLC UM PDUs over second channel; See ¶.47, a first channel as a LTE carrier; Examiner’s Note: Kumar discloses the limitation “a carrier of a plurality of CCs”),
- transmit the first RLC UM PDU and the second RLC UM PDU via the CC (See 401 Fig.4, receiving two or more segmented RLC UM PDUs from first network node over second channel),
- the first RLC UM PDU including a first RLC UM header indicating an RLC UM SN from the respective set of RLC UM SNs associated with the CC and the second RLC UM PDU including a second RLC UM header indicating the RLC UM SN from the respective set of RLC UM SNs associated with the CC (See ¶.83, the indications may be comprised in a header of the re-segmented RLC UM PDU; See ¶.98, the order indicator related to the re-segmented RLC UM PDU may be represented by a Segment Sequence Number (SSN); See ¶.109, according to embodiments herein, the RLC UM PDU header is modified to allow for RLC UM PDU re-segmentation. To explain the modification the modified header, it will be compared to a prior art header according to the discussion below. FIGS. 5 and 6 depicts the difference between original and modified RLC UM PDU headers according to an example; See Figs.5-6 and ¶.110, a prior art RLC UM PDU comprises one or more RLC Service Data Unit (SDU) segments where all except first and/or last segments are whole SDUs. An RLC SDU is a packet or PDU related to a layer above the RLC layer in the LTE protocol stack. If the first segment for the RLC UM PDU with SN=N is a segmented SDU, then the prior SDU segment part is comprised in the last segment in the RLC UM PDU with SN=N−1. If last segment is a segmented SDU, then the first segment of the RLC UM PDU with SN=N+1 is the sequential part of the segmented SDU. Hence, a segmented RLC SDU is always contained in two or more consecutive (in SN) RLC PDUs. This means that the SN maps to specific RLC SDUs that cannot be changed once RLC UM PDUs with higher SN has been sent. The header of a prior art RLC UM PDU is shown in FIG. 5).
Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses,
- wherein each CC of the plurality of CCs is associated with a respective set of RLC UM sequence numbers (SNs) starting from a respective starting SN and separated by an offset greater than one (Kumar, See Figs.4A-C and ¶.96, two or more component carriers (CCs); See ¶.89, a sequence number in UM, buffering is performed at the transmitter and the receiver, segmentation is performed at the transmitter, reassembly is performed at the receiver, and no feedback mechanism is used; See ¶.103, the data may be received in the form of RLC PDUs. Each RLC PDU may be associated with a sequence number (SN). One or more RLC PDUs may be received per slot. For an example where SNs received in each slot are illustrated, refer to FIG. 11; See ¶.123, each communication may include a number of RLC PDUs. For example, each communication may represent one or more TBs which may be associated with a number of RLC PDUs. Thus, the UE may receive RLC PDUs. An RLC PDU may be associated with a sequence number; See Fig.12 and ¶.152, as shown by reference number 1205, in a slot n, the RLC entity may receive RLC SNs 0-20 on the first carrier and SNs 2000-2500 on the second carrier. As further shown, on the first carrier, the RLC entity may receive SNs 21-40 in slot n+1, SNs 41-60 in slot n+2, and SNs 61-100 in slot n+1; See ¶.154, as shown by reference number 1220, the RLC entity may detect an RLC hole based at least in part on RLC SN 2000 being received before RLC SN 21 through 1999. Thus, the RLC entity may start a reassembly timer. Once the reassembly timer expires, as shown by reference number 1225, the RLC entity may transmit an RLC status report reporting a NACK for a subset of RLC SNs that are not scheduled for new transmission or for which HARQ recovery is unfinished. If the gap between the RLC SNs of the second carrier (starting at RLC SN 2000) and the RLC SNs of the first carrier (starting at RLC SN 0) is sufficiently large, then the subset of RLC PDUs between RLC SN 20 and RLC SN 2000 may be lost. For example, if the reassembly timer is shorter than the time required to receive or schedule RLC SNs 21-1999, then the RLC may perform automatic repeat request (ARQ) recovery for the subset of RLC SNs 21-1999 before the subset has been transmitted to the UE, thereby introducing delay in receiving the subset. A BLER in the physical channel may exacerbate the delay since the retransmission may take additional attempts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “each CC of the plurality of CCs being associated with a respective set of RLC UM sequence numbers (SNs) starting from a respective starting SN and separated by an offset greater than one” as taught by Kumar into the system of Olsson, so that it provides a way for the first carrier and the second carrier to be associated with different sets of parameters such that the RLC entity receives a larger number of RLC PDUs on the second carrier in a given slot (Kumar, See ¶.152).
Regarding claim 2, Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses “the respective starting SN in the respective set of RLC UM SNs for each CC of the plurality of CCs is different from the respective starting SN in the respective set of RLC UM SNs for each other CC of the plurality of CCs (Kumar, See 1215 Fig.12 and ¶.152, a plurality of different RLC SN starting numbers for each of CCs).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses “the respective starting SN in the respective set of RLC UM SNs for each CC of the plurality of CCs is less than a respective next SN, separated from the respective starting SN by the offset, in the respective set of RLC UM SNs for each other CC of the plurality of CCs (Kumar, See 1215 Fig.12 and ¶.152).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses “the offset is a fixed offset (Kumar, See ¶.130, a time offset; See further ¶.141).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses “the offset is greater than or equal to a number of CCs in the plurality of CCs (Kumar, See Fig.10 and ¶.141, one or more segment offsets (SOs) in each of the CCs).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses “coordinate across the plurality of CCs at a reoccurring time interval to synchronize the respective set of RLC UM SNs for each CC of the plurality of CCs with respect to a highest RLC UM SN previously assigned across the plurality of CCs (Kumar, See Figs.7A-C, Fig.8, and ¶.120, highest RLC SN).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses “wherein the reoccurring time interval is a slot (Kumar, See Figs7-8, slots).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses “the reoccurring time interval is associated with an RLC reassembly timer (Kumar, See Fig.11, t-reassembly along the slots).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Olsson does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses “the RLC UM SN from the respective set of RLC UM SNs associated with the CC is greater than a highest RLC UM SN previously assigned across the plurality of CCs (See Fig.11, assigned next SNs along the slots).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Olsson discloses a receiver device for wireless communication, comprising:
- one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to (See Fig.13, a processor and a memory):
- receive segments of a radio link control (RLC) unacknowledged mode (UM) packet associated with an RLC UM sequence number (SN) (See 401 Fig.4, receive segmented RLC UM PDUs from first network node over second channel).
Olsson discloses the method of delivering the RLC UM PDU segments to a layer above the RLC layer such as PDCP layer (Olsson, See ¶.120), but does not explicitly disclose what Kumar discloses,
- deliver the RLC UM packet without starting a reassembly timer associated with a gap between the RLC UM SN and a previous RLC UM SN, associated with a previously received RLC UM packet, in connection with the segments of the RLC UM packet being received via a component carrier (CC) of a plurality of CCs, different from a CC via which the previously received RLC UM packet was received, and in connection with a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) SN included in the RLC UM packet being a next expected PDCP SN (Kumar, See Fig.12 and ¶.154, as shown by reference number 1220, the RLC entity may detect an RLC hole based at least in part on RLC SN 2000 being received before RLC SN 21 through 1999. Thus, the RLC entity may start a reassembly timer. Once the reassembly timer expires, as shown by reference number 1225, the RLC entity may transmit an RLC status report reporting a NACK for a subset of RLC SNs that are not scheduled for new transmission or for which HARQ recovery is unfinished. If the gap between the RLC SNs of the second carrier (starting at RLC SN 2000) and the RLC SNs of the first carrier (starting at RLC SN 0) is sufficiently large, then the subset of RLC PDUs between RLC SN 20 and RLC SN 2000 may be lost. For example, if the reassembly timer is shorter than the time required to receive or schedule RLC SNs 21-1999, then the RLC may perform automatic repeat request (ARQ) recovery for the subset of RLC SNs 21-1999 before the subset has been transmitted to the UE, thereby introducing delay in receiving the subset. A BLER in the physical channel may exacerbate the delay since the retransmission may take additional attempts; See ¶.88, PDCP PDU; See ¶.120, incoming PDCP PDUs are transmitted on a CC associated with a given numerology; See ¶.153, as described above, from the RLC entity's perspective, the UE may receive packets with RLC SNs (or PDCP SNs) spread out considerably. For example, higher range RLC SNs (such as RLC SNs 2000-2500, shown by reference number 1210) will be received from the leading carrier while lower range RLC SNs (such as RLC SNs 0-100, of which RLC SNs 0-20 are shown by reference number 1215) are filled from the lagging carrier in the same TTI. This issue can also arise for any number of carriers and an SN gap of any value that cannot be received or recovered via HARQ within a configured RLC reassembly timer. If there is residual HARQ BLER which is common in field, HARQ recovery delay can exacerbate the issue). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Olsson discloses “the previously received RLC UM packet is a most recent previously received RLC UM packet (See Fig.7).”
Regarding claim 14, Olsson discloses “deliver the RLC UM packet within starting a reassembly timer further in connection with receiving all of a plurality of RLC UM protocol data units (PDUs) associated with the RLC UM SN (See ¶.53 and ¶.120, reassembling the segmented RLC UM PDUs; Examiner’s Note: Kumar further discloses the reassembly timer in details as rejected in claim 1).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Olsson discloses “determine that the RLC UM SN is not an expected next RLC UM SN in connection with detecting the gap between the RLC UM SN and the previous RLC UM SN (See 402 Fig.3, detect missing segmented RLC UM PDU; See Fig.7, missing/failing one of the segments).”
Regarding claim 16, Olsson discloses “deliver the RLC UM packet from an RLC layer of the receiver device to a PDCP layer of the receiver device (See ¶.120, delivering the RLC UM PDU segments to a layer above the RLC layer such as PDCP layer).”
Regarding claim 17, Olsson discloses “deliver data included in the RLC UM packet to an application executing on the receiver device (See 120 Fig.3, a receiver).”
Regarding claim 18, it is a receiver device claim corresponding to the claim 12, except the limitations “using an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) (AI/ML model” (Kumar, See Fig.14 and ¶.169, FIG.14 is a diagram illustrating an example of training and using a machine learning model in connection with determining whether or how to modify an RLC timer length, in accordance with the present disclosure. The machine learning model training and usage described herein may be performed using a machine learning system. The machine learning system may include or may be included in a computing device, a server, a cloud computing environment, or the like) and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “using an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) (AI/ML model” as taught by Kumar into the system of Olsson, so that it provides a way of applying the trained machine learning model to a new observation, such as by receiving a new observation and inputting the new observation to the trained machine learning model (Kumar, See ¶.177).
Regarding claim 20, Olsson and Kumar disclose ”deliver the RLC UM packet, are individually or collectively configured to: deliver the RLC UM packet within starting a reassembly timer further in connection with receiving all of a plurality of RLC UM protocol data units (PDUs) associated with the RLC UM SN (Olsson, See Fig.3 for RLC UM PDUs; Kumar, See ¶.154, as shown by reference number 1220, the RLC entity may detect an RLC hole based at least in part on RLC SN 2000 being received before RLC SN 21 through 1999. Thus, the RLC entity may start a reassembly timer. Once the reassembly timer expires, as shown by reference number 1225, the RLC entity may transmit an RLC status report reporting a NACK for a subset of RLC SNs that are not scheduled for new transmission or for which HARQ recovery is unfinished. If the gap between the RLC SNs of the second carrier (starting at RLC SN 2000) and the RLC SNs of the first carrier (starting at RLC SN 0) is sufficiently large, then the subset of RLC PDUs between RLC SN 20 and RLC SN 2000 may be lost. For example, if the reassembly timer is shorter than the time required to receive or schedule RLC SNs 21-1999, then the RLC may perform automatic repeat request (ARQ) recovery for the subset of RLC SNs 21-1999 before the subset has been transmitted to the UE, thereby introducing delay in receiving the subset. A BLER in the physical channel may exacerbate the delay since the retransmission may take additional attempts).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 19 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights