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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been 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 (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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zheng et al., US 2023/0269026, (“Zheng’).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches “A wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless communication node from a higher layer, Protocol Data Units (PDUs) including identification information (paragraph no. 0300, “At a high level, a payload of data for transmission to a receiving device(s) may be generated at an upper layer as a set of IP packet(s). Each IP packet at the resource block level is passed down to the service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer, where a SDAP header is added to the packet. This creates an SDAP SDU including the SDAP header …The RLC SDU with the RLC header is then passed down to the MAC layer, where a MAC header is added to the packet. This creates a MAC SDU plus the MAC header. The MAC layer assembles the MAC SDUs with MAC headers into a MAC PDU transport block, which is passed down to the physical layer for transmission”; the “identification information” reads at least on the MAC headers); and
identifying, by the wireless communication node, at least one of: PDU sets for the PDUs or a PDU set time sequence of the PDU sets (paragraph no. 0317, “Each PDCP PDU header may include fields to assist a receiving device in decoding and reassembling the associated PDCP SDU. For example, each PDU header may include a sequence number for one associated PDCP SDU. The receiving device may be able to determine which PDCP PDUs are for a same PDCP SDU based on the sequence numbers”; see also, paragraph no. 0371; note that the sequence number is one means of identifying, by the transmitting UE, a PDU set within each PDCP SDU – see Fig. 3A);
wherein the higher layer comprises at least one of: a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User Plane (GTP-U) a Next Generation user plane interface, NG-U, an Xn User plane, Xn-U interface, user data from Non-access stratum, NAS, or user data of Quality of Service (QoS) flow” (see paragraph no. 0267 which discloses NAS and paragraph no. 0330 which discloses QoS flow).
Regarding independent claim 19, this independent claim is a corresponding apparatus claim of the method claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding independent claim 19, see Fig. 17 for the claimed structural elements of the claim.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claim 2, Zheng teaches “wherein the wireless communication node receives PDU set sequence numbers for the PDU sets, and the PDU sets are determined by the PDU set sequence numbers” (paragraph no. 0135).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng teaches “wherein: the PDU set time sequence is indicated by the PDU set sequence numbers; and/or the PDU set sequence numbers are coded across multiple QoS flows based on a decoding time sequence of the QoS flows if PDU sets are mapped to multiple QoS flows” (paragraph no. 0135).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng teaches “wherein the wireless communication node receives at least one of a PDU set start indication, a PDU set end indication for each PDU set or a total PDUs number of a PDU set, and the PDU sets are determined by the at least one of the PDU set start indication, the PDU set end indication or a total PDUs number of a PDU set” (paragraph no. 0317).
Regarding claim 6, Zheng teaches “wherein the PDUs corresponding to each PDU set are included in a Service Data Adaption Protocol (SDAP) PDU” (paragraph no. 0330).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng teaches “wherein the PDUs corresponding to each PDU set are sequentially included in the SDAP PDU based on PDU sequence numbers of the PDUs” (paragraph no. 0311).
Regarding claim 8, Zheng teaches “wherein the PDUs corresponding to each PDU set in one or more SDAP PDUs, are included in a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) PDU” (paragraph nos. 0314, 0331).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng teaches “wherein the PDUs corresponding to each PDU set are sequentially included in the PDCP PDU” (paragraph nos. 0314, 0331).
Regarding claim 10, Zheng teaches “wherein the PDCP PDU comprises one or more Message Authentication Code – Integrity (MAC-I) for the one or more SDAP PDUs” (paragraph no. 0373).
Regarding claim 11, Zheng teaches “the PDU sets is indicated in at least one of an SDAP PDU, a PDCP PDU, or a radio link control (RLC) PDU, and the PDU sets is indicated by using at least one of a temporary header or reserved bits” (paragraph nos. 0314, 0331 and Fig. 4A – Fig. 4A shows a PDU header (“temporary header”); alternatively, the bits used for the PDCP SN (e.g., bits b4-b7 in Oct 1 could be construed as “reserved bits”).
Regarding claim 12, Zheng teaches “wherein an indication of the PDU sets in the at least one of the SDAP PDU, the PDCP PDU, or the RLC PDU comprises at least one of a PDU set sequence number or a PDU set indication, and information of the PDU set indication comprises at least one of: an indication indicating that information of the PDU set is not included, an indication indicating that a corresponding PDU is in a PDU set having single PDU, an indication indicating a corresponding PDU is at a start position of a corresponding PDU set, an indication indicating a corresponding PDU is at an end position of a corresponding PDU set, or an indication indicating a corresponding PDU is at a middle position of a corresponding PDU set” (the “a PDU set indication” alternative is taught (see Fig. 11 and paragraph no. 0317) and the alternative “an indication indicating … is at an end position of a corresponding PDU set” is taught (see paragraph no. 0317)).
Regarding claim 13, Zheng teaches “wherein the SDAP PDUs, PDCP PDUs or RLC PDUs corresponding to the same PDU sets are transmitted in one transport block (TB) in one TB group or in an identical time domain position” (Fig. 11 and paragraph no. 0300).
Regarding claim 14, Zheng teaches “wherein a PDU set type indication or a PDU set dependency indication is included in at least one of an SDAP PDU, a PDCP PDU, or an RLC PDU, and the information of the PDU sets is indicated by using at least one of a temporary header or reserved bits” (Fig. 11 and Fig. 4A – see Fig. 4A for “a temporary header” (PDU header) or “reserved bits” (bits b4-b7 of Oct 1 of the PDCP SN)
Regarding claim 20, see Fig. 17.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Godin, US 2020/0351701, (“Godin”).
Zheng does not teach but Godin teaches “wherein the PDU set time sequence is determined by QoS flow identifiers (QFIs) sequence numbers for the PDUs in the PDU sets, and the QFIs sequence numbers are coded across multiple QoS flows based on the PDU set time sequence if the PDU sets are mapped to multiple QoS flows” (paragraph nos. 0146, 0148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng by incorporating the teachings of Godin to enable a PDU session for redundant transmission, as suggested by Godin in paragraph no. 0148.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Yang et al., US 2024/0414586, (“Yang”).
Zheng does not teach but Yang teaches “wherein: the PDU set type indication indicates a corresponding PDU set corresponds to a video compression type of a I-Frame, a B-Frame, or a P-Frame, or indicates a corresponding PDU set decoding time sequence or PDU set decoding dependency comprising at least one of a primary frame, a secondary frame, or a nth secondary frame, where n is integer; and/or the PDU set dependency indication indicates a corresponding PDU set is individual, depends on a PDU set immediately ahead, or depends on a PDU set immediately ahead and a PDU set immediately afterwards” (the first alternative “indicates a corresponding PDU set corresponds to a video compression type of a I-Frame, a B-Frame, or a P-Frame” is taught – see paragraph no. 0045 which discloses a video compression standard called picture types for compressing video frames, e.g., picture types I, P, and B for generating I-frames, P-frames, and B-frames, respectivley).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng by incorporating the teachings of Yang to enable the transmission of video via video compression, as suggested by Yang in paragraph no. 0045.
Claim(s) 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Jin et al., US 2020/0112885, (“Jin”).
Regarding claim 16, Zheng teaches “wherein a PDU set dependency relationship between PDUs is indicated by including sequence numbers, SNs, in at least one of PDCP PDUs or RLC PDUs” (see Fig. 13 and Fig. 4A which discloses PDCP SN included in a PDU header 405).
Zheng does not teach but Jin teaches “the SNs in the at least one of the PDCP PDUs or the RLC PDUs are encoded over multiple data radio bearers (DRBs)” (see paragraph no. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng by incorporating the teachings of Jin to increase the data transmission rate by using multiple DRBs.
Regarding claim 18, Zheng teaches “wherein the wireless communication node indicates PDU set sequence numbers in at least one of PDCP PDUs or RLC PDUs, and the PDU set sequence numbers are encoded based on the PDU set sequence numbers in PDCP service data units, SDUs” (see Fig. 13 and Fig. 4A which discloses PDCP SN included in a PDU header 405).
Zheng does not teach that the encoding is “over multiple DRBs” as required by claim 18.
Jin teaches encoding sequence numbers over multiple DRBs (see paragraph no. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng by incorporating the teachings of Jin to increase the data transmission rate by using multiple DRBs.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Han et al., US 2019/0246310, (“Han”).
Zheng teaches “wherein the wireless communication node indicates a PDU set dependency relationship of a PDU by including an SN of an associated PDU in at least one of a PDCP PDU or an RLC PDU” (see Fig. 13 and Fig. 4A which discloses PDCP SN included in a PDU header 405).
Zheng does not teach but Han teaches “an identifier (ID) of an associated DRB or an associated logical channel” (paragraph nos. 0050, 0051 disclose that a data frame includes a source DRB ID and PDCP PDU SN for the source DRB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng by incorporating the teachings of Han to facilitate the transmission of PDCP PDUs between the network and the UE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights