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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 7/14/2026. No claims are amended or added. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims are directed to a machine, method and system, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One: The claims recite limitations of: reciting protocol data units (PDUs); determining delay timing information based on timing data; generating new PDUs based on service data units (SDUs); determining transmission priorities; and transmitting the new PDU’s based on the determined information. These steps amount to collecting information, allying timing information, and making decisions regarding data transmission based on that information. These operations are considered mathematical in concepts such as timing calculations, delay determinations, and mental processes such as evaluating information and selection actions based on that evaluation. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2, Prong Two: the additional elements including a user equipment (UE), processors and memory, and communication layers or protocol layers, are recited at a high level of generality and are described as performing their ordinary and expected functions. Such as: receiving and transmitting data; processing information and executing instructions. The specification describes a wireless communication environment and discusses delay aware scheduling for XR applications, the claims do not clearly recite a specific improvement to the operation of the wireless communication system, or a particular technical mechanism for implementing delay aware scheduling beyond the functional results. But the claims apply the abstract idea in the context of a generic wireless communication environment. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to: generic computing components (processors, memory), and conventional wireless communication elements (e.g. UE, network entity, protocol layers). The functions performed by these elements such as receiving PDU’s; determining timing information; prioritizing data and transmitting data are well understood, routine and conventional activities in wireless communications. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,419,315 (referred to hereafter as Yi).
As to claim 1, Yi teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory (see col. 6, line 60-67- memory);
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE (see col. 6, line 60-67- processor connected to memory) to:
configure the UE with a first configuration associated with timing information for multiple protocol data units (PDUs) (Yi, 10419315, see col.2, lines 40-437 a delay measurement method in downlink can be used for uplink, because the eNB can know the time when PDCP entity of the UE receives PDCP SDU from an upper layer; see also claim 8, the time field is configured per radio bearer; claim 9, the time field is configured for certain time period));
receive the multiple PDUs from a multimedia sender via a first protocol layer ( YI see at least col. 5 lines 36-46, transmission of user data means that PDCP receives PDCP service data units (SDUs) from the upper layers (e.g. the network or IP layer) and forwards it to the RLC layer);
determine delay timing information for the multiple PDUs based on the first configuration, wherein the determined delay timing information corresponds to multiple service data units (SDUs) associated with the multiple PDUs at a second protocol layer (see col. 11 lines 23-32; abstract and fig. 11, step S1101, The PDCP transmitter receives a PDCP SDU from an upper layer, step S1103; generates a PDCP data PDU including the PDCP SDU and a time field);
generate new PDUs at the second protocol layer that are based at least in part on the multiple SDUs, wherein each new PDU of the second protocol layer includes at least one SDU of the multiple SDUs and a corresponding header (see fig. 12A-12D, four PDU formats each showing Time Stamp octets + D/C filed + PDCP SN+ data field composing the complete PDU structure); and
transmit the new PDUs generated at the second protocol layer to a network entity (see Abstract, transmitting by the PDCP transmitter, the generated PDCP data PDU to a PDCP receiver; fig. 11, Step S1107, the PDCP transmitter transmits the PDCP data PDU including the time field).
As to claim 4, Yi teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the first protocol layer is an Internet Protocol (IP) layer (see YI, abstract and claim 1, PDCP service data units (SDU) from the upper layers (e.g. the network or IP later).
As to claim 5, Yi teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the second protocol layer is a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer (see at least abstract, a method and a device for performing a packet delay calculation in a PDCP entity in a wireless communications system YI).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi and further in view of Kang et al. U.S. Patent Pub 2025/0106844 (referred to herein after as Kang).
As to claim 2, Yi does not but Kang teaches:
determine a transmission priority for each PDU of the new PDUs based on the determined delay timing information that corresponds to the multiple SDUs (see Kang et al. 2025/0106844, paragraph 0017-0018, the legacy LCID prioritization process does not consider delay, the WD is further configured to associate the at least one queued data packet to a corresponding delay group index. determining a difference between the queue duration of the at least one queues packet and the PDB duration; the scheduling grant is based on the total size of the queues packets associated with the delay group index having lowest time value.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kang with those of Yi to make the system more efficient by improving detection accuracy, increase robustness to signal distortion and provide more reliable decision making based on corelated metrics.
As to claim 3, Yi-Kang teaches the UE of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
transmit the new PDUs based on the determined transmission priority, by:
triggering a delay status reporting (DSR) procedure corresponding to the new PDUs, wherein the DSR procedure includes reporting to the network entity timing information that is based on the delay timing information (see Kang at least paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0032 and 0037, The network node is configured to receive a buffer status report from the WD, the buffer status report including queue information for a first protocol data unit PDU set. at least one PBD left value associated with the first PDU set. The buffer status report includes at least one of a logical channel indication and a logical group channel indication);
dynamically updating a logical channel prioritization (LCP) of a logical channel associated with the transmission of the new PDUs based on a second configuration for the UE, wherein the second configuration includes a parameter set, including the following parameters: alternate logical channel priorities alternate priority bit rates (PBRs); or alternate bucket size durations (BSDs) (see at least Kang paragraphs oo15 and 0017, the priority of each LCID Is configured by radio resource control (RRC) and proposed dynamic override based on PBD left buckets, LCID Is the highest priority LCID and thus bits of Y,M,N will be taken before data from static departure from static RRC priorities based on delay); ; and
grouping one or more logical channels to a Logical Channel Group (LCG), wherein the LCG is mapped to a common multi-modal service ID associated with the new PDUs of the multimedia sender, and wherein the multi-modal service ID enforces a common set of Quality of Service (QoS) and multi-modal synchronization parameters for the one or more logical channels of the LCG; or combinations thereof) (see Kang paragraph 0017, LCID1 and LCID2 received from an XR application, e.g. video and pose with different PBD; the buffer status report includes at least one of logical channel indication and logical channel group indication, therefore multiple LCIDs from same XR application grouped in common delay aware).
As to claim 9, Yi-Kang teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the multiple PDUs received from the multimedia sender are part of a PDU Set that includes a PDU Set information header (see paragraphs 0020 and 0024 of Kang, the network node is configured to receive a buffer status from the WD, the buffer status report includes queue information for a first protocol data nit (PDU) set, the first PDU set include at least one queued packet. At least one PDU left value associated with the first PDU set, the PDU set as discrete scheduling unit with associated metadata).
As to claim 10, Yi-Kang teaches the UE of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the delay timing information for the multiple PDUs received from the multimedia sender based on identifying sender timing information within encapsulated protocol headers of the PDU Set (see paragraph 0030 of kang, he associating includes: determining a difference between the queue duration of the at least one queued data packet and the PDB duration of the logical channel associated with the at least one queued data packet, comparing the difference to the at least one time value of at least one delay group index, and mapping the at least one queued data packet to a delay group index based on the comparison).
As to claim12, Yi-Kang teaches the UE of claim 10, wherein the delay timing information includes at least one of the following information elements:
a multimedia sender absolute timestamp that is mapped to an absolute time instance at which the multimedia sender released the multiple PDUs to the UE; a multimedia sender absolute timestamp that is mapped to an absolute time instance at which the multimedia sender released the PDU Set to the UE; an elapsed timestamp that corresponds to a timing interval that elapsed between the multimedia sender releasing the multiple PDUs to the UE and the UE receiving the multiple PDUs at the first protocol layer; an elapsed timestamp that corresponds to a timing interval that elapsed between the multimedia sender releasing the PDU Set to the UE and the UE receiving at least one PDU of the PDU Set at the first protocol layer; a remaining delay budget that determines a difference between a transmission delay budget of the multiple PDUs and the elapsed timestamp of the PDU; or a remaining delay budget that determines a difference between a transmission delay budget of the PDU Set and the elapsed timestamp of the PDU Set (see Kang at least paragraph 0039 at least one PDB left value corresponds to a difference between at least one queued packet and at least one PDB associated the first PDU set while the PDB left = PDB- queue duration = remaining delay budget). .
13. The UE of claim 1, Yi-Kang teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: report a capability to determine the delay timing information to the network entity via: an information element that is part of a UE traffic assistance information for uplink (UL); or a UE capability radio resource control (RRC) message (see Kang paragraphs 0028, 0033 , 0104 and 0143, The WD is configured to send a buffer status report to the network node, the buffer status report based on the determined queue duration.. and the PDB duration, the buffer status report includes at least one of a logical channel and a logical channel group indication or uplink delay capability reporting to network vis MAC CE).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi and further in view of Sammour et al U.S. Patent No. 8,855,047 (referred to herein after as Sammour).
As to claim 6, Yi does not but Sammour teaches the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: determine multiple PDCP discard timers based on the delay timing information that corresponds to the multiple SDUs (see Sammour at least abstract, and col. 5 line 64- col. 6 line 3, a PDCP layer sets a timer and discards a PDCP SDU upon expiration of the timer. The timer may be set upon receiving the PDCP SDU from an upper layer).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Sammour with those of Yi in order to improve detection accuracy and robustness to timing variations and noise, and consequently provide more reliable wireless signal processing performance.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi and further in view of 5G Media Stream (5GMS); general description and architecture (3GPP TS 26.501 version 17.7.0 Release 17) (2023-09), (referred to herein after as 5GMS).
As to claim 7, Yi does not but 5GMS discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
receive an indication of the first configuration, by: a UE programmatic interface exposed to the multimedia sender (see 5GMS Clause 4.3 , APIs that may be exposed by Media Session Handler to the Media streamer from client -internal communication, and to the 5GMSu-Aware Application to make use of 5GMSu functions and Clause 4.1, Media aware Application; an application entity on the UE that makes use of the 3GPP-defined API to invoke the Media Session Handler);
a dynamic policy request sent by a Media Session Handler (MSH) to a second network entity and determined based at least in part by the multimedia sender (see 5GMS Clause 4.0.6, the dynamic policies feature… enables the 5GMS client in the UE to manipulate the network traffic handling policies for ongoing Media streaming session. The PCF is accesses via the NEF”, Clause 4.2, The 5GMSd may relay or initiate a request for different policy or changing function (PCF) treatment or interact with other network functions via the NEF; Clause 6.9, the Media Session Handler…, triggers a dynamic policy)
a UE programmatic interface exposed to the MSH; or combinations thereof (see 5GMS, Clause 4.3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 5GMS with those of Yi to apply the adaptive techniques within a known streaming architecture to improve streaming quality, efficiency and responsiveness.
As to claims 8, Yi does not but 5GMS discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive the multiple PDUs from the multimedia sender via a communication medium, including: a shared memory interface; a tethered wireless communications interface; or a tethered wired communications interface (see 5GMS, Clause 4.3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 5GMS with those of Yi to apply the adaptive techniques within a known streaming architecture to improve streaming quality, efficiency and responsiveness.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi; further in view of Kang and further view of 3GPPTS 26.522 Rel 18 (referred to hereinafter as 5G, (2023-09))
As to claim11, Yi-Kang do not but 5G discloses the encapsulated protocol headers include real- time protocol (RTP) header extension elements containing timing information (see Clause 5.3, and E.2)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of 5G with those of Yi-Kang to make the system more efficient since the combination improves computational efficiency and tailoring operations to system inputs and condition.
Claims 14-20 do not teach anything above and beyond the limitations of claims 1-13 and therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments concerning the rejections under U.S.C. 101, 102, and 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101
The applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite PDUs, SDUs protocol, a US, and network entities, and because the claimed operations cannot be performed in the human mind. Applicant further argues that the claims improve wireless communications by providing more accurate delay information for scheduling and resource allocation.
The examiner acknowledges that the claims are implemented in a wireless communication environment. However, the presence of network components and protocol terminology does not prevent the claims from reciting judicial exception. The claims include determining delay timing information from timing information. The specification itself describes determining elapsed time from timing values and determining a remaining delay budget from the elapsed time and an applicable delay budget. Therefore, the claimed delay determination reasonably encompasses mathematical evaluation of timing information. The rejection does not require a finding that every protocol layer or transmission operation can literally be performed in the human mind.
The applicant’s arguments concerning asserted technological improvement have been considered. The specification describes embodiments involving accurate remaining -delay determination, tethering delay, XR traffic, delay-aware scheduling, reduced packet discard, and improved radio-resource allocation. However, independent claims 1, 14, and 16 do not require many of these particular features. Foe example, these claims do not require XR traffic, an RTP header, a multimedia-ender absolute timestamp, calculation of a particular remaining delay budget, determination of tethering delay, or allocation of radio recourses based on the determined delay information. Rather, these claims more broadly recite receiving PDUs, determining delay timing information, generating PDUs at another protocol layer, and transmitting the generated PDUs. Accordingly, the particular benefits relied upon by the applicant are not commensurate with the scope of these independent claims.
The applicant’s reliance on Enfish, McRO and DDR Holdings has been considered but does not change the conclusion. In those cases, the claims themselves reflected the particular mechanism relied upon as the technological improvement. Here, the applicant relies substantially on a narrower implementation described in the specification or expressly added by the dependent claims. The existence of a technological problem in the specification does not, by itself establish that the broader independent claims recite the particular technological solution asserted in the arguments.
Regarding Independent claim 18.
With respect to claim 18, the examiner acknowledges that the claim more directly relates the received delay timing information to prioritization and allocation of radio resources. However, claim 18 broadly recites prioritizing and allocation radio resources based on the received delay timing information without requiring the particular scheduling technique or modification to the radio resource allocation mechanism relied upon by the applicant. The more specific scheduling implementations described in the specification therefore are not necessarily required by claim18.
Applicant’s Step 2B arguments and reliance on BASCOM have been considered. Applicant’s assertion that the claimed arrangement is not taught or suggested by the prior art does not, by itself, establish an inventive concept under U.S.C 101, as novelty and obviousness under 102 and 103 are separate inquiries. Applicant has not shown that the additional elements, considered individually or an as ordered combination, require the particular remaining-delay and delay-aware scheduling mechanisms relied upon as providing significantly more. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C 102- Yi.
The applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 over Yi have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Yi differs from claim 1 because Yi inserts timing information at the PDCP layer, whereas the claimed UE allegedly receives PDUs that already contain sender-generated absolute timing information, extracts such information from encapsulated headers, determines an elapsed time or remaining delay budget, and uses that information for XR radio scheduling. However, these additional requirements are not recited in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 does not require that the received PDUs already contain an absolute sender timestamp, that such timestamp be contained in an encapsulated header that the UE parse an RTP header, that the received PDUs for a PDU set, or that the determined delay timing information comprise an elapsed time or remaining delay budget. These features are recited in dependent claims 9-12. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to read these narrower limitations into claim 1.
Applicant’s specification also indicates that “delay timing information” is not limited to a calculated remaining delay budget. Rather, the specification states that the delay timing information may include a multimedia sender absolute timestamp, an elapsed timestamp, or a remaining delay budget. Yi similarly teaches timing information corresponding to PDCP SDU, including a time field that may be represented as an absolute time and that is set to the time at which PDCP SDU is received from the upper layer. Yi then generates a PDCP data PDU containing the SDU and corresponding time field. Therefore, applicant’s distinction based on YI allegedly failing to calculate the particular remaining delay budget described in certain embodiments is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Yi also teaches configuration associated with the timing information. Specifically, Yi teaches that inclusion of the time field maybe configured by the eNB through RRC messaging or a PDCP Control PDU and maybe configured per radio bearer and for specified period (Yi, claims 8 and 9, see also the discussion accompanying the time-field configuration). Yi therefore teaches a configuration associated with timing information foe the PDUs as required by claim 1.
The applicant argues that Yi does not disclose a “distinct multimedia sender”. Claim 1, however, does not require the multimedia sender and UE to be physically distinct devices. Indeed, the applicant’s specification expressly provides that the multimedia sender and UE may be included in common US or device, Yi’s disclosure of upper-layer user data supplied to the PDCP entity is therefore not distinguished simply because Yi does not describe a separated tethered XR device.
With respect to the first and second protocol layer, yi teaches that the PDCP layer receives PDCP SDUs from upper layers, including the network/IP layer, and generates PDCP PDUs from corresponding PDCP SDUs (Yi col. 5 lines 36-56, fig. 11, steps S1101-S1107, lines 23-45. Yi further generates a PDCP data PDU containing the received PDCP SDU and associated header/time-field information and transmits the generated PDU to the PDCP receiver (Yi, abstract; fig. 11). Therefore, Yi teaches the IP-to-PDCP relationship relied upon in the rejection. Claims 4 and 5 simply further specify that the first payer is IP and the second layer is PDCP, respectively, limitations that are explicitly supported by Yi. Lastly, the applicant’s arguments concerning XR traffic, PDU set scheduling, tethering delays, and radio-resource scheduling do not distinguish claims 1,4, and 5 because those features are not required by these claims. The specification may describe such embodiments and advantages, but limitations from those embodiments cannot be imported into the claims. Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C 102.
Regarding 35 U.S.C § 103
The applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 25 U.S.C. 103 have also been considered. except as otherwise noted below, the arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant’s main argument is that the cited references allegedly fail to disclose the claimed arrangement because the claimed invention uses multimedia sender absolute timing, computes a remaining delay budget that accounts for upstream or tethering delay, and applies that information to XR scheduling. However, the applicant again, relies on limitations that are not present in the broader claims and on features that are added by narrower dependent claims. Claim I does not require an RTP header, a PDU set, an absolute sender timestamp, a tethering interface, or remaining delay budget. Those limitations are introduced in claims 8-12. Accordingly, those features cannot be used to distinguish the broader claims from the cited prior art.
With respect to claims 2,3,9,12 and 13, Kan is directed to delay-aware handling of XR traffic and expressly uses PDU-set queue information and packet -delay budget left information in buffer status reporting and scheduling. Kang therefore supplies the delay-based prioritization and reporting concepts that Yi does not expressly provide. The fact that Kang measures delay using queue duration rather than the particular sender-timestamp embodiment emphasized by the applicant does not render the combination improper, because claim 2 broadly requires transmission priority based on delay timing information and claim 12 expressly permits a remaining delay budget as one form of delay timing information. Kang’s PDB-left value is itself a remaining-delay quantity derived from the applicable PDB and packet queue, Therefore, the applicant’s characterization of Kang as merely “retrospective” does not distinguish the claimed subject matter.
The applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Yi and Kang because they operate at different protocol layers an address different problem. The examiner disagrees. Yi is concerned with associating timing information with PDCP SDUs/PDUs so that packet delay may be determined, while Kang is concerned with using delay information for delay-aware scheduling and buffer status reporting for latency-sensitive XR traffic. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to use Kang’s delay-aware scheduling and reporting techniques with Yi’s timing aware PDCP processing so that timing information associated with buffered traffic could be used to prioritize and schedule latency-sensitive uplink data. The references are therefore complimentary rather than incompatible, and the combination would have involved predictable use of known delay information for the known purpose of improving timely transmission of latency-sensitive traffic.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 3 is not persuasive. Claim 3 recites several alternatives operations. Kang teaches delay-aware buffer status reporting for PDU sets and using delay information to prioritize local channel traffic. Therefore, Kang is not required to disclose every implementation described in the specification. However, if the rejection relies specifically on the limitations requiring an LGC to be mapped to a common multi-modal service ID having common Qos and synchronization parameters, Kang must teach or suggest that limitation. Merely disclosing two logical channels associated with the same XR application dos not, by itself, establish the claimed common multi modal service ID.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, the applicant argues that Kang does not use Multimodal-sender absolute timestamps, that argument is not persuasive as to the limitations actually relied upon in those claims. Kang expressly teaches PDU sets and PBD Left value associated and is satisfied by at least one listed form of delay timing information. Applicant’s argument therefore improperly treats every alternative in claim 12 as mandatory. Applicant’s specification states that delay timing information maybe an absolute timestamp, an elapsed timestamp, or a roaming delay budget, it is not limited to sender-timestamp embodiment emphasized int eh arguments. The examiner notes, however, that claim 10 separately requires identifying sender timing information within encapsulated protocol headers of the PDU set. To the extent the present rejection relies only Yi and Kang for this particular limitation, the cited portions should expressly identify where the references teach or suggest that header-based sender timing arrangement. A queue-duration/PBD left calculation, stand alone, is not the same limitation. Accordingly, this limitation should not be maintained on a mapping that merely equates Kang’s queue-duration calculation with identifying sender timing information in an encapsulated protocol header.
With respect to claim 6, Sammour expressly teaches starting a PDCP discard timer upon receipt of PDCP SDU from an upper layer, discarding the SDU upon expiration of the timer, and using separate timer for each PDCP SDU (Sammour abstract col. 6 lines 28-50 and see also claim 1 and 7). Sammour further explains that PDCP SDUs may become stale or useless when scheduling delay causes their latency to exceed the applicable QoS requirement (Sammour, col, 2 lines 38-56). Combining Sammour’s PDCP discard timer management with Yi timing-aware PDCP processing would therefore have predictably allowed PDCP data to be discarded in accordance with timing constraints rather than retained after useful transmission time had expired. Claims 6 does not require additional DSR triggering, threshold behavior, or PDU set synchronization relied upon by the applicant in the argument
With respect to claims 7 and 8, 5GMS describe a UE media-streaming architecture in which a Media Session Handler interfaces with media applications and may invoke dynamic policy treatment, and it supports US media-streaming functions and interfaces. The rejection therefore relies on 5GMS for the additional application/Media Session Handler interfaces and communication media features recited in claim 7 and 8, while Yi supplies the underlying timing aware PDCP processing. Applicant’s argument that 5GMS does not itself disclose the entirety of claim 1 is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, the additional 3GPP TS 26.522 is relied upon for the RTP header-extension timing limitation. Applicant acknowledgement that such timing extension were known in media contexts supports the proposition that RTP timing header extensions themselves were known. Nevertheless, claims 11 depends from claim 10. Therefore, the rejection of claim 11 remains dependent upon sufficient showing for claim 10’s requirement of identifying sender timing information within encapsulated protocol headers of the PDU set. Similarly, with respect to claim 13, a buffer status report containing delay-related queue information is not, by itself, the same as reporting a UE capability to determine delay timing information. If the cited Kang disclosure does not expressly or inherently provide such capability reporting, the rejection should not be maintained solely by characterizing ordinary buffer status reporting as capability reporting.
The applicant assertion of unexpected results has also been considered. However, the alleged benefits of improved remaining delay accuracy, QoS compliance, synchronization, and radio resource efficiency are stated in general terms and not ben shown to be unexpected relative to the closest prior art corresponding to the scope of the claims. The cited references themselves are directed to packet-delay measurement, delay-aware scheduling, PDCP discard control and media-streaming policy/interface functions. Therefore, improves handling of latency-sensitive traffic would have been reasonably expected result of the proposed combinations. Accordingly, the arguments do not establish that the cited combinations are based on impermissible hindsight. Rather, the references provide related teachings directed to packet timing, delay aware scheduling, PDCP timing/discard behavior, and media streaming control, and the proposed combinations use those known teachings for their known functions. The rejections under 35 U.S.C §103 are therefore maintained.
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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights