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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 1, 9, 11, 15, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang Jian et al. (WO 2023231599 A1, English translation, see attached), in view of Lifeng Han et al. (WO 2017202334, English translation, see attached).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a first node (fig. 1 @UE) for header compression (para. 6 of page 2, UE performs header compression) in wireless communications (para. 4 of page 8 line 1-2, UE are devices with wireless communication functions), comprising: a first transmitter (para. 5 of page 2, the transmitter UE), performing a header compression for a first data Service Data Unit (SDU) at a first protocol layer (last para. of page 8, para. 7 & 8 of page 9, SDAP layer performs header compression on IP data packet which is SDAP SDU); and submitting a first data PDU to a second protocol layer (para. 6 of page 10, submitting the SDAP PDU to the PDCP layer), where the first data PDU is generated by the first data SDU having been through the header compression (para. 8 of page 12, after header compression, SDAP SDU is an SDAP PDU); the second data SDU is the first data PDU received at the second protocol layer (para. 9 of page 7, PDCP SDU is equivalent to SDAP PDU); and submitting a second data PDU to a lower layer (para.4 of page 11, PDCP layer submits the PDCP PDU to the RLC layer).
wherein the first protocol layer is an upper layer of the second protocol layer (para. 9 of page 7, the SDAP layer sends data to the lower layer which is PCDP layer); the second protocol layer is an upper layer of a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer (fig. 3A & para. 4 of page 2, the PDCP layer is above the MAC layer); the first protocol layer and the second protocol layer are both protocol layers of an access stratum (fig. 1, UE communicates directly with gNB, which is part of the part of the access stratum); service provided by the second protocol layer to the first protocol layer is a radio bearer (fig. 3B, PDCP layer uses radio bearer (RB) to decode data packets and send them to the SDAP layer).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “performing encryption processing for a second data SDU at the second protocol layer”, “the second data PDU is generated by the second data SDU having been through the encryption processing”.
In the same field of wireless communication network, Han teaches performing encryption processing for a second data SDU at the second protocol layer (para. [0179] first 3 lines, PDCP layer performs encryption on the PDCP SDUs), the second data PDU is generated by the second data SDU having been through the encryption processing (para. [0179], PDCP entity performs encryption to obtain PDCP PDU from PDCP SDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang’s header compression for Service Data Unit (SDU) and the transmission of PDU between the protocol stack layers with the encryption of SDU as taught by Han for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, in combination of Zhang and Han, Zhang teaches the first protocol layer is an SDAP layer (fig. 1, 3A & 3B, the top SDAP layer can be used as the first layer).
Regarding claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, in combination of Zhang and Han, Zhang teaches the second protocol layer is a PDCP layer (fig. 1, 3A & 3B, the PDCP layer below the SDAP layer can be used as the second layer).
Regarding claim 15, and as applied to claim 9 above, in combination of Zhang and Han, Zhang teaches the second protocol layer is a PDCP layer (fig. 1, 3A & 3B, the PDCP layer below the SDAP layer can be used as the second layer).
Regarding claim 16, and as applied to claim 1 above, in combination of Zhang and Han, Zhang teaches the first protocol layer supports mapping between a QoS flow and a radio bearer, and supports marking a QoS flow identity (para. 6 of page 2, line 2-3, the mapping between the QoS and radio bearer of the data packet at the SDAP layer; para. 7 of page 9, the SDAP layer adds QoS flow identifiers).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang teaches a method in a first node (fig. 1 @UE) for header compression (para. 6 of page 2, UE performs header compression) in wireless communications (para. 4 of page 8 line 1-2, UE are devices with wireless communication functions), comprising: performing a header compression for a first data Service Data Unit (SDU) at a first protocol layer (last para. of page 8, para. 7 & 8 of page 9, SDAP layer performs header compression on IP data packet which is SDAP SDU); and submitting a first data PDU to a second protocol layer (para. 6 of page 10, submitting the SDAP PDU to the PDCP layer), where the first data PDU is generated by the first data SDU having been through the header compression (para. 8 of page 12, after header compression, SDAP SDU is an SDAP PDU); the second data SDU is the first data PDU received at the second protocol layer (para. 9 of page 7, PDCP SDU is equivalent to SDAP PDU); and submitting a second data PDU to a lower layer (para.4 of page 11, PDCP layer submits the PDCP PDU to the RLC layer).
wherein the first protocol layer is an upper layer of the second protocol layer (para. 9 of page 7, the SDAP layer sends data to the lower layer which is PCDP layer); the second protocol layer is an upper layer of a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer (fig. 3A & para. 4 of page 2, the PDCP layer is above the MAC layer); the first protocol layer and the second protocol layer are both protocol layers of an access stratum (fig. 1, UE communicates directly with gNB, which is part of the part of the access stratum); service provided by the second protocol layer to the first protocol layer is a radio bearer (fig. 3B, PDCP layer uses radio bearer (RB) to decode data packets and send them to the SDAP layer).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “performing encryption processing for a second data SDU at the second protocol layer”, “the second data PDU is generated by the second data SDU having been through the encryption processing”.
In the same field of wireless communication network, Han teaches performing encryption processing for a second data SDU at the second protocol layer (para. [0179] first 3 lines, PDCP layer performs encryption on the PDCP SDUs), the second data PDU is generated by the second data SDU having been through the encryption processing (para. [0179], PDCP entity performs encryption to obtain PDCP PDU from PDCP SDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang’s header compression for Service Data Unit (SDU) and the transmission of PDU between the protocol stack layers with the encryption of SDU as taught by Han for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang Jian et al. (WO 2023231599 A1, English translation, see attached), in view of Lifeng Han et al. (WO 2017202334, English translation, see attached), and further in view of Kang (US 2026/0247210 A1).
Regarding claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Zhang teaches the first transmitter (para. 5 of page 2, the transmitter UE), performing a header compression for a third data SDU at the first protocol layer (last para. of page 8, para. 7 & 8 of page 9, SDAP layer performs header compression on IP data packet which is SDAP SDU; para. 7 of page 18, the SDAP layer aggregates multiple data packets); and submitting a third data Protocol Data Unit (PDU) to the second protocol layer (para. 6 of page 10, submitting the SDAP PDU to the PDCP layer; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets), where the third data PDU is generated by the third data SDU having been through the header compression (para. 8 of page 12, after header compression, SDAP SDU is an SDAP PDU).
wherein the submitting a first data PDU to a second protocol layer (para. 6 of page 10, submitting the SDAP PDU to the PDCP layer) comprises: submitting the first data PDU to a first protocol entity of the second protocol layer (fig. 4, entity PDCP processes the SDAP PDU received from SDAP layer); and the submitting a third data PDU to the second protocol layer (para. 6 of page 10, submitting the SDAP PDU to the PDCP layer; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets) comprises: submitting the third data PDU to the second protocol entity of the second protocol layer (fig. 4, entity PDCP processes the SDAP PDU received from SDAP layer; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets);
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “the first data SDU and the third data SDU correspond to a same QoS flow”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Kang teaches the first data SDU and the third data SDU correspond to a same QoS flow (fig. 5 @510, 512, 516, 522 & 526, the first SDU and the third SDU belong to one PDU set; para. [0080] line 7-9, one or multiple PDU sets corresponding to the same QoS flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang’s header compression for Service Data Unit (SDU) and the transmission of PDU between the protocol stack layers with the using of the same QoS flow as taught by Kang for the purpose of maintaining consistency, enabling multiplexing and improving the protocol stack’s efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, and as applied to claim 4 above, in combination of Zhang, Han and Kang, Zhang teaches the second protocol layer is a PDCP layer (fig. 1, 3A & 3B, the PDCP layer below the SDAP layer can be used as the second layer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang Jian et al. (WO 2023231599 A1, English translation, see attached), in view of Lifeng Han et al. (WO 2017202334, English translation, see attached), and further in view of Donggun Kim et al. (US 2023/0209400 A1).
Regarding claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Zhang teaches the first transmitter (para. 3 of page 2, the transmitter UE), performing a header compression for a third data SDU at the first protocol layer (last para. of page 8, para. 7 & 8 of page 9, SDAP layer performs header compression on IP data packet which is SDAP SDU; para. 7 of page 18, the SDAP layer aggregates multiple data packets); and submitting a third data PDU to the second protocol layer (para. 6 of page 10, submitting the SDAP PDU to the PDCP layer; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets), where the third data PDU is generated by the third data SDU having been through the header compression (para. 8 of page 12, after header compression, SDAP SDU is an SDAP PDU).
Wherein the submitting a first data PDU to a second protocol layer (para. 6 of page 10, submitting the SDAP PDU to the PDCP layer) comprises: submitting the first data PDU to a first protocol entity of the second protocol layer (fig. 4, entity PDCP processes the SDAP PDU received from SDAP layer); and the submitting a third data PDU to the second protocol layer (para. 6 of page 10, submitting the SDAP PDU to the PDCP layer; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets) comprises: submitting the third data PDU to the first protocol entity of the second protocol layer (fig. 4, entity PDCP processes the SDAP PDU received from SDAP layer; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets).
SDAP layer performs header compression for the first data SDU and third data SDU (last paragraph of page 8, para. 7 of page 18, SDAP layer performs header compression on multiple SDUs) and PDCP layer performs header compression (page 12 para. 5, same header compression can be performed at PDCP layer).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “the header compression performed at the first protocol layer for the first data SDU and the header compression performed at the first protocol layer for the third data SDU use different header compression profiles”.
In the same field of header compression, Kim teaches the header compression performed at the first protocol layer for the first data SDU and the header compression performed at the first protocol layer for the third data SDU use different header compression profiles (fig. 8 @1h-05, 1h-10, 1h-15 & 1h-20, para. [0010] suggests different compressors, i.e. ethernet header compression (EHC) or robust header compression (ROHC), may be used to perform header compression on the received PDCP SDU at the PDCP layer; first SDU can use EHC and second SDU can use ROHC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s data transmission across protocol stack layers and header compression at the first protocol layer to include different header compression profiles as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, and as applied to claim 2 above, in combination of Zhang, Han and Kim, Zhang teaches the first data SDU and the third data SDU use different Internet Protocol (IP) addresses; the first data SDU and the third data SDU correspond to different Quality of Service (QoS) flows or different QoS sub-flows (para. 5 & 6 of page 9, the SDAP layer obtains different IP data packets and maps them with different QoS to different RBs (different IP address destination)).
Regarding claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Zhang teaches the first transmitter (para. 5 of page 2, the transmitter UE), performing a second header compression for the second data SDU at the second protocol layer (para. 5 of page 12, PDCP layer performs header compression; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets).
wherein the header compression performed at the first protocol layer for the first data SDU is a first header compression based on RoHC (last paragraph of page 8, SDAP performs header compression based on RoHC).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “where the second header compression is a header compression other than based on RoHC”.
In the same field of header compression, Kim teaches the second header compression is a header compression other than based on RoHC (fig. 8 @1h-01 & 1h-15, para. [0010] suggests different compressors, i.e. ethernet header compression (EHC) may be used to perform header compression on the received PDCP SDU at the PDCP layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s header compression with RoHC at the first layer to include other compression technique performed at the second layer as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, and as applied to claim 2 above, Zhang teaches the first transmitter (para. 5 of page 2, the transmitter UE), performing a second header compression for the second data SDU at the second protocol layer (para. 5 of page 12, PDCP layer performs header compression; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets).
wherein the header compression performed at the first protocol layer for the first data SDU is a first header compression based on RoHC (last paragraph of page 8, SDAP performs header compression based on RoHC).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “where the second header compression is a header compression other than based on RoHC”.
In the same field of header compression, Kim teaches the second header compression is a header compression other than based on RoHC (fig. 8 @1h-01 & 1h-15, para. [0010] suggests different compressors, i.e. ethernet header compression (EHC) may be used to perform header compression on the received PDCP SDU at the PDCP layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s header compression with RoHC at the first layer to include other compression technique performed at the second layer as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, and as applied to claim 4 above, Zhang teaches the first transmitter (para. 5 of page 2, the transmitter UE), performing a second header compression for the second data SDU at the second protocol layer (para. 5 of page 12, PDCP layer performs header compression; para. 4 of page 18, the PDCP layer aggregates multiple data packets).
wherein the header compression performed at the first protocol layer for the first data SDU is a first header compression based on RoHC (last paragraph of page 8, SDAP performs header compression based on RoHC).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “where the second header compression is a header compression other than based on RoHC”.
In the same field of header compression, Kim teaches the second header compression is a header compression other than based on RoHC (fig. 8 @1h-01 & 1h-15, para. [0010] suggests different compressors, i.e. ethernet header compression (EHC) may be used to perform header compression on the received PDCP SDU at the PDCP layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s header compression with RoHC at the first layer to include other compression technique performed at the second layer as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, and as applied to claim 2 above, in combination of Zhang, Han and Kim, Zhang teaches the first protocol layer is an SDAP layer (fig. 1, 3A & 3B, the top SDAP layer can be used as the first layer).
Regarding claim 12, and as applied to claim 2 above, in combination of Zhang, Han and Kim, Zhang teaches the second protocol layer is a PDCP layer (fig. 1, 3A & 3B, the PDCP layer below the SDAP layer can be used as the second layer).
Regarding claim 14, and as applied to claim 6 above, in combination of Zhang, Han and Kim, Zhang teaches the second protocol layer is a PDCP layer (fig. 1, 3A & 3B, the PDCP layer below the SDAP layer can be used as the second layer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang Jian et al. (WO 2023231599 A1, English translation, see attached), in view of Lifeng Han et al. (WO 2017202334, English translation, see attached), and further in view of Toru Uchino (US 2024/0163718 A1).
Regarding claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Zhang teaches the MAC layer performs data packet segmentation (para. 4 of page 3).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “the first transmitter, performing segmentation for the second data SDU at the second protocol layer; wherein the second protocol layer is a PDCP layer”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Uchino teaches the first transmitter (fig. 11 @1102), performing segmentation for the second data SDU (fig. 18 @1802, multiple SDUs) at the second protocol layer; wherein the second protocol layer is a PDCP layer (para. [0077] last 5 lines, segmentation may be performed at the PDCP layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s data packet segmentation at the MAC layer to include the segmentation at the PDCP layer as taught by Uchino for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang Jian et al. (WO 2023231599 A1, English translation, see attached), in view of Lifeng Han et al. (WO 2017202334, English translation, see attached) and Donggun Kim et al. (US 2023/0209400 A1), and further in view of Toru Uchino (US 2024/0163718 A1).
Regarding claim 18, and as applied to claim 4 above, Zhang teaches the second protocol layer supports Sequence Number, supports integrity protection (last para. of page 13 & first para. of page 14, PDCP layer supports integrity protection and sequence number).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “supports replication and supports packet discarding”.
In the same field of header compression, Kim teaches supports packet discarding (para. [0204] & [0205], PDCP layer discards the data).
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach “supports replication”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Uchino teaches supports replication (para. [0097] last 4 lines, PDCP layer provides duplication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the functions of sequence number, integrity protection as taught by Zhang, with the function of packet discarding as taught by Kim, and with the function of replication as taught by Uchino for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, and as applied to claim 7 above, Zhang teaches the second protocol layer supports Sequence Number, supports integrity protection (last para. of page 13 & first para. of page 14, PDCP layer supports integrity protection and sequence number).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “supports replication and supports packet discarding”.
In the same field of header compression, Kim teaches supports packet discarding (para. [0204] & [0205], PDCP layer discards the data).
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach “supports replication”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Uchino teaches supports replication (para. [0097] last 4 lines, PDCP layer provides duplication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the functions of sequence number, integrity protection as taught by Zhang, with the function of packet discarding as taught by Kim, and with the function of replication as taught by Uchino for the purpose of improving the protocol stack’s flexibility and efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1584. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, Gary Mui, can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/T.V./
Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights