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 Remarks/Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/903,963 last filed on April 13th, 2026.
Claim 6 was cancelled.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 20 were amended.
Claim 21 was newly added.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending and have been examined, directed to METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA, COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND CHIP.
Upon further review of the latest claim amendments along with the applicant’s representative’s response, the examiner reviewed the applied reference and respectfully remains unpersuaded.
The previously raised 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn at this time.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, using Kahn, and looking at amended independent claim 1 for discussion purposes here, the applicant’s representative primarily argued that the applied Kahn reference did not expressly disclose of the now amended feature directed to a “first information” that comprises “first indication information” that’s coming from an access network element, where the representative cited Kahn’s ¶ 30, and focused on how the system contains the QoS policies on how to handle and process the groupings of packets received, and conclusively stated that an access network element wasn’t taught.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed term and concept in question is still very broad. Kahn for example further discloses of radio access components, like a modem, a transceiver, or the like, that’s not depicted on the Figures, and this would be the “access network device” component within the overall system. Additionally, there are now more generic terms (i.e., a first data, a first information and a first indication information) that are all very loosely associated or connected in some way in this system that’s ultimately deciding on whether to perform an integration or differentiation process on the “data”. For at least these reasons at such a high generic level, Kahn’s system and teachings are still very much applicable and relevant, as Kahn also is directed to identifying and recognizing on how to handle packets that belong to the same PDU set. There would need to be more definitions for these terms and/or other features to further better distinguish over the current applied reference teachings. For at least these reasons, the Examiner respectfully remains unpersuaded at this time.
The other independent claims 10 and 20 were similarly amended and argued following claim 1 and thus were similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Further amendments to dependent claims 7 and 8 and newly added claim 21 were reviewed and interpreted and addressed for consistency with the interpretations.
The remaining dependent claims were not specifically argued at this time.
Applicant's arguments were considered but they were not found persuasive. See the following claim rejections for further clarifications with added emphasis on the points previously disclosed.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0319638 A1 to Kahn et al. (referred to hereafter as “Kahn”).
As to claim 1, Kahn further discloses a method for processing data, comprising:
performing an integration process or a differentiation process based on first data (Kahn discloses of an overall system that can identify one or more packets and determine if they need to be treated in an integrated manner, (e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 30-31 and 33-34);
the method further comprising:
determining, based on first information, at least one of:
at least two different pieces of data in the first data having a first relationship, wherein the first relationship comprises at least one of an association relationship, a dependency/dependence relationship, or a priority relationship,
whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process, or
data for the integration process or the differentiation process (Examiner’s Note: the term “first information” is defined within the first prong as two different pieces of data in the “first data”, it’s not necessarily defined as such for this third prong. The Examiner will continue with that same definition for now in this prong as well, as determining the “data” itself can be interpreted as based on a collective group of multiple data packets which would be identified and determined to belong together via integration.
With that in mind, again Kahn’s system determines that the received data is going to be undergoing an integration process, based on the group of data packets within the same PDU set of the “first data” which was already determined to need an integration process (e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 24-25 and 28-29));
wherein the first information comprises first indication information, and the first indication information is from an access network element (Kahn discloses of various radio access components (e.g., modem, transceiver, or the like), which could be a node or component in the network, to help facilitate endpoints like the UE to connect and access the 5G network (e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 52-53). So conceptually together, the “first information” which are in reference to the group of packets can be identified, using some “first indication information” or indicative classification information, found in headers for example, that would be indicative including such as like the application and/or protocols used at the UE to send the packets, before those packets traverse through the various intermediary components, including the access components (e.g., modem, transceiver, or the like) on the network (e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 25, 28-29, and 52-53)).
As to claim 2, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first data is a protocol data unit (PDU) set (a group of packets belong to the same PDU set, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 33-34).
As to claim 3, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the PDU set comprises at least one of:
a first PDU set comprising at least two PDUs having a first relationship (a group of packets that belong to the same PDU set, that should be handled in an integrated manner, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 33-34); or
at least one second PDU set and at least one third PDU set having a first relationship, wherein the first relationship comprises at least one of:
an association relationship, a dependency/dependence relationship, a priority relationship, an integration process relationship, or a differentiation process relationship.
As to claim 4, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the integration process or the differentiation process comprises at least one of:
identifying at least two different pieces of data in the first data (the first data is a PDU set, so it would have at least two or more from a “group” of packets within the set, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 33-34);
identifying different pieces of the first data;
…etc...or
generating a data packet for the first data and transmitting the data packet to a lower layer.
As to claim 5, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the integration process or the differentiation process comprises at least one of:
identifying at least two PDUs in the first PDU set (The first PDU set would have at least two or more packets or units within the group of packets/units within the set, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 27-28 and 33-34);
identifying the at least one second PDU set and the at least one third PDU set;
…etc…or
or generating a data packet for the PDU set and transmitting the data packet to a lower layer.
As to claim 7, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information comprises at least one of an input channel, packet header information, a dedicated indication, or first packet indication information (Following claim 1, the “first information” is not defined, besides within one of the prongs, and so under broadest reasonable interpretations, if interpretations follow a different prong, then the term “first information” is not defined until here with these selections.
With that in mind, Kahn discloses of various ways that the group of packets are identified and handled as part of a PDU set, which can map “first information” as header information and/or other packet classification markings that indicate the PDU set associations and media unit properties, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 27-28 and 33).
As to claim 8, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining, based on the first information, at least one of the at least two different pieces of data in the first data having the first relationship, whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process, or data for the integration process or the differentiation process comprises:
determining, based on the first information, at least one of:
at least two PDUs in a first PDU set having the first relationship,
whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process (Following claim 1, Kahn’s system can determine from the received group of packets that those packets should be handled with an integration process, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 27-28 and 33-34), or
at least two PDUs in the first PDU set for the integration process or the differentiation process.
As to claim 9, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein determining, based on the first information, at least one of:
the at least two PDUs in the first PDU set having the first relationship; whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process, or the at least two PDUs in the first PDU set for the integration process or the differentiation process comprises:
determining, based on different input channels, at least one of:
the at least two PDUs in the first PDU set having the first relationship,
whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process (Following claims 1, 6 and 8, Kahn’s system can make the determination on the received group of packets, coming from various sources, which is interpreted similarly as different “channels”, on how to categorize and process them in an integrated manner, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 27-28, 33-34, and 39-40), or
the at least two PDUs in the first PDU set for the integration process or the differentiation process, in a case that the at least two PDUs in the first PDU set are transmitted over the different input channels.
As to claim 10, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 12, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 13, Kahn further discloses the communication device according to claim 10, wherein the processor, when loading and executing the one or more executable instructions, is further caused to perform:
determining, based on second information, at least one of:
different pieces of the first data having a first relationship, whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process (Following claim 10, based upon a second piece of information, the system would still be making the determination on the packets to see if there is a need to process them in an integrated manner or not, where the second piece of information can be interpreted as similar to a first piece of data, out of the plurality of identifying features/factors related to the packets, that impact how the system would identify and classify/categorize them, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 25-29 and 33-34), or different pieces of the first data for the integration process or the differentiation process, wherein the first relationship comprises at least one of an association relationship, a dependency/dependence relationship, or a priority relationship.
As to claim 14, Kahn further discloses the communication device according to claim 13, wherein the processor, when loading and executing the one or more executable instructions, is caused to perform:
determining, based on the second information, at least one of
at least one second PDU set and at least one third PDU set having the first relationship, whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process (Following claims 10, and 13, the system can identify the packets using another piece of identifying/classifying data and still make the determination on whether the one or more packets should be handled in an integrated manner or not, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 25-29 and 33-34), or the at least one second PDU set and the at least one third PDU set for the integration process or the differentiation process.
As to claim 15, Kahn further discloses the communication device according to claim 14, wherein the processor, when loading and executing the one or more executable instructions, is caused to perform:
determining, based on different input channels, at least one of
the at least one second PDU set and the at least one third PDU set having the first relationship, whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process (Following claims 10, 13, and 14, the system will make the determination on the received group of packets, coming from various sources, on how to categorize and process them in an integrated manner, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 27-28, 33-34, and 39-40), or the at least one second PDU set and the at least one third PDU set for the integration process or the differentiation process, in a case that the at least one second PDU set and the at least one third PDU set are transmitted over the different input channels.
As to claim 20, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 21, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the first indication information is configured to instruct a first communication device serving as a transmitter or a second communication device serving as a receiver to perform the integration process or the differentiation process (Following claims 1 and 7, Khan’s system can route a UE’s request through one or more various radio access components (e.g., modem, transceiver, or the like), which could be a node or component in the network, to help facilitate how the packets traverse through the network (e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 52-53), and then onwards to other network components. Along with what’s established earlier in claims 1 and 7, the “first indication information” was covered at the end in claim 1, which was interpreted as indicative classification information, which can instruct one of the other network components like the SMF and/or UPF on how to properly handle the packets, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 25, 28-29, and 31));
The following two phrases are just definitions and a component like the SMF or the UPF could be interpreted as a network element that’s either/or the first and the second communication network element that’s receiving the packets and also transmitting the packet onwards to the next network component or endpoint.
wherein the first communication device serving as the transmitter comprises any one of a terminal, an access network device, or a core network element; or
the second communication device serving as the receiver comprises any one of a terminal, an access network device, or a core network element.
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 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0319638 A1 to Kahn.
As to claim 16, Kahn further discloses the communication device according to claim 10, wherein the processor, when loading and executing the one or more executable instructions, is caused to perform:
introducing a target protocol layer into an access stratum (AS), wherein the target protocol layer supports the integration process or the differentiation process based on the first data (Following claim 10, while Kahn does not explicitly use the term “access stratum (AS)”, given the context of the overall concepts and the subsequent dependent claims, it would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application to understand that the access stratum layer deals with managing the connections and security between the UE and the radio access network, and that a “target layer” within the space or level of what’s considered the “access stratum” is performing many of the functionalities described, which supports the overall concept of handling the packets in an integrated manner. Additionally, from context, one of ordinary skill in the art could also interpret this “target protocol layer” as a part of the SDAP or PDCP layers themselves (e.g., claim 19), which Kahn does disclose, as the system works with those two different protocol layers, all of which supports the overall concept of handling the packets in an integrated manner, e.g., Kahn: ¶ 30).
As to claim 17, Kahn further discloses the communication device according to claim 16, wherein
(Following claim 10 and 16’s similar interpretations, while Kahn does not explicitly use the term or describe of a target layer within an “access stratum (AS)” space, Kahn discloses of a lot of the functionalities that support the overall integrated handling process of packets, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that if one were to treat those described functionalities as a separate space or layer, then it would have to be either above or below the SDAP or PDCP layer, meaning it would be meet either the first or second case below. And if one were to be interpret the target protocol layer as the actual SDAP or PDCP (like claim 19’s possibility) then Kahn’s teachings would’ve also cover it as SDAP and PDCP layers are discussed as well (e.g., Kahn: ¶ 30)).
the target protocol layer is located above a Service Sata Adaptation Protocol (SDAP) layer; or
the target protocol layer is located between an SDAP layer and a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer; or
the target protocol layer is located between a PDCP layer and a radio link control (RLC) layer; or
the target protocol layer is located below an RLC layer.
As to claim 18, Kahn further discloses the communication device according to claim 10, wherein the processor, when loading and executing the one or more executable instructions, is caused to perform:
adding a target function in an access stratum (AS) protocol layer, wherein the target function supports the integration process or the differentiation process based on the first data (Following claim 10, and similar to claim 16, while Kahn does not explicitly user the term “access stratum” protocol layer, Kahn does disclose about the various functionalities (e.g., media identification, PDU set classification, QoS policies enforcement, etc.) that the system carries out, all of which supports the integration process of handling packets. And given the surrounding context and the subsequent dependent claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that all of these described functionalities can be performed and/or incorporated by the SDAP or PDCP layers themselves, e.g., Kahn: ¶ 30).
As to claim 19, Kahn further discloses the communication device according to claim 18, wherein
the AS protocol layer is a Service Data Adaptation Protocol (SDAP) layer (e.g., Kahn: ¶ 30); or
the AS protocol layer is a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer (e.g., Kahn: ¶ 30); or
the AS protocol layer is a radio link control (RLC) layer; or
the AS protocol layer is a medium access control (MAC) layer.
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 Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights