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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/903,963 last filed on October 01st, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, directed to METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA, COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND CHIP.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More specifically, for claim 8 which depends on claims 1 and 6, in the preamble heading section, it appears to be supposedly referencing a section from claim 6, but it does not match the section in claim 6.
Claim 6 establishes 3 elements:
“…determining, based on first information, at least one of:
(a) 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,
(b) whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process, or
(c) data for the integration process or the differentiation process.”
Claim 8 establishes:
The method according to claim 6, wherein determining, based on the first information, at least one of (a’) the at least two different pieces of data in the first data having the first relationship, (b) whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process, or (d) the at least two different pieces of data in the first data for the integration process or the differentiation process comprises:
determining, based on the first information, at least one of:
(e) at least two PDUs in a first PDU set having the first relationship,
(f) whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process, or
(g) at least two PDUs in the first PDU set for the integration process or the differentiation process.
As laid out above, claim 8 references the determining step from claim 6, before introducing further one or more limits, but the elements do not match. Element (a) is truncated or missing more details and a new element (d) is added as part of the three (see underlined). Therefore, it’s not clear if the claim 8 is referencing the same determining step of claim 6 or introducing new limits right away. Additionally, if element (d) was chosen, the further determining step in the bottom half has a similar third element, so it would potentially not be further limiting (see underlined section in the bottom half again).
Claim 9 establishes:
the method according to claim 8, wherein determining, based on the first information, at least one of:
(e’) the at least two PDUs in the first PDU set having the first relationship; (b or f) whether to perform the integration process or the differentiation process, or (d or g) 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, 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.
With respect to claim 9, it refers back to the “determining, based on the first information, at least one of…” section (see highlighted sections), but that phrase is used twice in claim 8 (top and bottom half both use the same phrasing) as well as claim 6, so it is unclear if new limits are introduced right away, either branching from claim 6 or claim 8. It would appear to be referencing the bottom half of claim 8 as the claim language is the closest in resemblance at the moment. In either case, further amendments are needed to both claims 8 and 9. The Examiner currently interpreted the further limits in claim 9 and considered it based on “first information” and further on “different input channels.”
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 packets and determine if they need to be treated in an integrated manner, e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 30-31 and 33-34).
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 6, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 1, 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 (The first information would indicate to the system that the group of received packets should be handled in an integrated manner, e.g., Kahn: e.g., Kahn: ¶¶ 27-28 and 33-34).
As to claim 7, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the first information comprises at least one of first indication information, an input channel, packet header information, a dedicated indication, or first packet indication information (the first information can be related to packet classification markings that indicate the PDU set associate and media unit properties, e.g., Kahn: ¶ 27).
As to claim 8, Kahn further discloses the method according to claim 6, 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 the at least two different pieces of data in the first 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 6, the system can determine from the received group of packets that those packets should be handled in an integrated manner or in other words 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, the system will 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.
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
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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455