DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/30/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/30/25. These drawings are acceptable.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 1-11, 18 and 20 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.
Claims 1 and 18 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.
It is unclear to the examiner how “delete a transmitted data unit from the transmission queue immediately after its transmission” and “if no response is received from the receiving device instructing the transmission device to retransmit said data unit” can both be part of the same invention. If the transmitted data is deleted immediately after transmission, it is not available to be retransmitted. There is nothing in the claim language to determine if the data is immediately deleted or if it is retransmitted. Therefore, these claims are incomplete for omitting essential elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claims 2-11 and 20 depend either directly or indirectly on the independent claims 1 and 18. Therefore, these claims inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues of the independent claims and are rejected for the same reasons. Clarification is required for a proper search and comparison with the prior arts. As such the above claims may not be considered with respect to the prior arts.
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(s) 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suumaki et al. US 2001/0007137.
As per claim 12 Suumaki et al substantially teach the claimed receiving device comprising circuitry (Abstract) configured to: set up a bidirectional link with a transmission device for transmission and reception of data units (Figure 2 send receive sliding window); receive data units from the transmission device using the bidirectional link (Figure 2 paragraph [0020] Each packet on the left-hand side of the window has been transmitted, and an acknowledgement for the same has arrived. Inside the window, on the far left side, there is the first transmitted unacknowledged packet.); and provide the received data units to higher layer processing regardless of their reception state, according to which a data unit is received and decoded correctly or erroneously, wherein a reception state indicator indicating the reception state is provided to higher layer processing along with each data unit (paragraph [0031]: "The RLC PDUs are always transmitted as RLC SOU to the PDCP sublayer, but if errors are detected in RLC PDUs, information on the location of the erroneous point in the RLC SOU is transmitted to the PDCP sublayer in addition to the composed RLC SOU" or paragraph [0040]: "Real-time data transmission sets great demands on the delay, and thus it is not always possible to retransmit all erroneous packets (RLC POU) within the scope of the allowed delay in such a manner that a completely error-free RLC SOU could be composed. Therefore, in most cases it is more advantageous that in real-time data transmission also the erroneous RLC SDUs are transmitted to the upper sublayer with the error information").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present application to have used the system of Suumaki et al. as a functionally equivalent system even though the explicit setting up of the bidirectional link was not disclosed. This would have been obvious because the functionality is the same as shown above.
Claim 19 is the corresponding method claim to claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
As per claim 13 Suumaki et al. teaches the circuitry is configured, as part of the higher layer processing, to ignore or correct a data unit for which the reception state indicator indicates that it is erroneously received and/or decoded. (par. 31: "On the basis of this information, the PDCP sublayer can also discard the RLC SOU if necessary, if the error is located for example by the control information of the upper protocol layers").
As per claim 20 as dependent on claim 19 it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement this function on a computer readable medium and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware this is a common skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior arts of record teach:
US 2020/0274656 to Gordaychik teaches an original transmission may be resumed subsequently or dropped altogether based on a remaining portion or a priority thereof. The resumed portion may be multiplexed or transmitted after receiving a following DCI indicating a transmission priority of a same or another priority of the original transmission. The UE may determine to cancel the transmission due to determining a higher priority packet in the buffer. In one embodiment, another gNB may provide the cancellation instruction to the initial UE. Instead of cancelling, the UE may be provided with an indication to lower transmit power or may be provided with alternative resources for transmission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA H BRITT whose telephone number is (571)272-3815. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571)270-3750. 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.
CYNTHIA H. BRITT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2111
/CYNTHIA BRITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
