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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-15 and 18 are pending
Claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 under broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification is taught by Xu, Xu teaches each limitation either expressly or inherently. Xu describes a handover procedure in which the source eNB sends status and forwarding information to the target eNB at different times, and the target eNB uses that information to determine the next PDCP SN and properly handle forwarded packets during enhanced handover. That is technically the same as claim 1.
Applicant’s first argues that Xu allegedly discloses only alternative methods, not a single scheme in which both the first and second information are sent. Xu discloses that the source eNB transmits an SN status transfer and starts forwarding data and later transmits a second SN status transfer message containing PDCP SN and/or HFN information (Xu 0160–0163 and 0175). The fact that Xu also presents different ways the target can interpret forwarded packets does not negate the disclosure of a two stage exchange. Anticipation does not require every embodiment in the reference to include every feature, it is enough that one embodiment or a clear combination of teachings within the same disclosure teaches the claimed arrangement.
Applicant also argues that step 304 in Xu is not “merely associated with SN status transfer” and that the first information in claim 1 must include a packet group, PDCP SN, and HFN together. Xu discloses that the source eNB forwards data packets to the target eNB during handover and that those forwarded packets may carry SNs in the packet headers or be identified by sequence numbers in a GTP-U header or FP header (Xu 0164-0168, 0172, 0197-0201, 0235-0240, broadly reading that the forwarded data and SN-based identification comprise the claimed first information). The claim does not require that all of those items be in a single formally labeled field or protocol message, it only requires that the first information include those contents. Xu discloses exactly that functional combination.
Regarding applicant’s argument about the HFN limitation, Xu expressly discloses HFN in the second SN status transfer message and then explains how the target eNB determines the HFN corresponding to the next expected PDCP SN during enhanced handover (Xu 0175, 0300-0308, 0328, 0362-0374, and 0436-0445). The applicant’s position improperly requires that Xu recite the exact phrase “the HFN is used for encryption and integrity protection of the at least one first data packet” in the same sentence as the first data forwarding step. It is not believed that it is necessary. In the PDCP context, HFN is part of the PDCP count and security context, and Xu’s repeated disclosure of HFN in connection with packet handling and handover continuity is sufficient to teach the claimed use under a broad and reasonable reading. The examiner is entitled to rely on what Xu expressly says and what is necessarily implied by those disclosures, particularly where Xu is dealing with the very PDCP mechanism that uses SN and HFN for continuity and protection.
Applicant further argues that Xu’s HFN discussion is tied only to the second status transfer and therefore cannot support the first information. Xu teaches the source eNB continuing to transmit downlink data and forward data during the enhanced handover period, while later sending SN status information that includes HFN or allows the target to determine HFN. The claim separates “first information” and “second information” by time. Xu’s teaches the initial forwarding and status transfer occur, followed later by additional status transfer information that includes HFN and count information. Applicant is narrowly reading or interpreting the claim to read that the HFN must be physically packaged in the first transmission but claim language is does not require that.
Applicant further comments about Xu such that “step 304 can be omitted” or “steps 306 and 306a may not be executed,” and argues that Xu therefore fails to disclose a combined first and second information scheme. But Xu provides multiple embodiments, and several of those embodiments plainly include both an initial SN status transfer and a later SN/HFN transfer. The fact that Xu also provides alternatives where a particular step may be omitted does not mean Xu fails to teach the claim where the step is present. Similarly, applicant’s “one to one correspondence”, Xu repeatedly teaches packet by packet ordering and identification based on SNs, including embodiments where the target eNB identifies the first data packet without a PDCP SN according to the next PDCP SN and then successively identifies subsequent data packets- Xu 0164, 0166, 0168, 0172, and 0301 shows the functional relationship claimed.
Lastly, applicant argues that Xu does not disclose the second data packet as the first packet received by the target base station that is not associated with the first PDCP SN. Again, Xu expressly teaches that the target eNB identifies the first packet without a PDCP SN based on the next PDCP SN, and that the target eNB uses the source-provided SN/HFN status to determine which packet should be transmitted next without duplication or loss. That is the same functional relationship. The claim does not require a different mechanism or a different result.
Applicant is also reminded to review the interview notes, as those notes provide additional context regarding the Examiner’s view of Xu and the rejection. Many of the same points are reiterated here, such as Xu teaches the handover framework, the two-time-point information transfer, the PDCP SN and HFN context, and the target’s determination of the next packet/SN. Applicant’s arguments depend on reading the claim too narrowly.
In an effort to expedite prosecution and as discussed in the interview/emails, if Applicant wishes to distinguish over Xu, the most promising path would be to amend the claim to recite more concrete structural and constraints that Xu does not clearly disclose. For example, Applicant could specify that the first information is a single message that simultaneously includes the first PDCP SN, the first data packet group, and the first HFN, and that the first HFN is explicitly tied to encryption and integrity protection of the forwarded data packet group, while the second information is a separate later message containing different information used specifically to identify a first received packet that is not associated with the first PDCP SN. Applicant could also clarify that the first data packet group and the first PDCP SN are in a strict one to one correspondence at the time the first information is sent, rather than merely being associated through packet ordering or later status reconstruction. Tightening the claim around a particular message structure, a specific field relationship and an explicit security context transfer may create a clearer distinction over Xu’s multiple optional handover variants.
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, 4-6, 11, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Xu et al (US 2019/0116536).
Xu discloses: A handover method between eNBs (source and target) that addresses: Forwarding PDCP data packets. Communicating PDCP SN and HFN values. Sending SN status transfer messages (possibly multiple) at different times. Allowing the target eNB to determine the next PDCP SN and HFN for continued transmission. Avoiding duplication/loss during enhanced handover
Multiple embodiments where: First information (SN status transfer, PDCP SNs, HFNs, and data packets) is sent at one time. Second information (updated SN/HFN, counts, or indicators) is sent later. The target uses this to determine the PDCP SN for the next packet not associated with the earlier PDCP SNs. HFNs are explicitly used for encryption/integrity.
Initial conclusion: Xu appears to disclose all major structural and functional elements of the independent claims, including the two-stage sending (first and second information), the PDCP SN/HFN content, and the logic for determining the next SN at the target. It also covers the device configurations.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 18, Xu teaches a wireless communication method, comprising: sending, by a source base station, first information to a target base station when a base station handover occurs in a terminal device (Step 304, Step 404, Step 504 – source eNB sends SN status transfer to target eNB during handover), wherein the first information comprises at least one first packet data convergence protocol sequence number (PDCP SN) and a first data packet group, wherein the first data packet group comprises at least one first data packet (0164-0167, 0197-0201 – SN status transfer includes PDCP SNs; forwarded data includes PDCP data packets (first data packet group));
wherein the first information further comprises at least one first hyper frame number (HFN), and the at least one first HFN is used for encryption and integrity protection of the at least one first data packet ([0177], [0300]-[0308] – SN status transfer includes HFN; HFN used in PDCP for encryption/integrity, and
sending, by the source base station, second information to the target base station so that the target base station determines a second PDCP SN associated with a second data packet according to the second information (Step 306a, Step 408a, Step 508a – later SN status transfer or other message containing updated SN/HFN or counts; target uses it to determine next PDCP SN),
wherein the second data packet is a first one data packet received by the target base station that is not associated with the first PDCP SN (0164-0167, 0300-0308 – description of identifying first packet not associated with earlier PDCP SNs and assigning new SN),
wherein the first information and the second information are sent at different time points (clear two-stage sending: initial SN status transfer + later second SN status transfer or other info (0177 and 0300).
Worth noting related paragraphs in Xu 0301, 0302, 0327 and 0423-0475 which provide additional support for enhanced handover, target receives and source sending SN status transfer and forwards packets at different steps. In addition, since Xu discusses HFN and PDCP SN (DL count) and given the functionality is known in LTE PDCP (prior to applicant’s invention) one would infer that encryption usage is inherent to PDCP count.
Claim 15 is the source base station apparatus, essentially the apparatus implementation of claim 1 and claim 18 is a target base station apparatus which mirrors apparatus claim 1- see rejection above.
Claims 2-3 (Canceled)
Regarding claim 4. Xu teaches sending, by the source base station, the second information to the target base station so that the target base station determines the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet according to the second information, comprises: in a case that the terminal device is not disconnected from the source base station, sending, by the source base station, the second information to the target base station, so that the target base station determines the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet according to the second information (Xu explicitly contemplates sending second status information while the UE remains connected to source (enhanced handover 0158, 0191, 0230, 0420-0424 and 0457-0459).
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches the second information comprises one of following information: an indication signaling, a maximum PDCP SN in the data packet associated with the first PDCP SN in the first data packet group, and identification information (Xu explicitly lists second SN status types: indication, counts, max SN, identification info/end marker. Xu expressly discloses each of the three listed types as possible contents of the second information (indication value, max PDCP SN/count, identification/end-marker- 0164-0169, 0175, 0219-0224, 0420-0424).
Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches the maximum PDCP SN is a maximum PDCP SN of the at least one first PDCP SN corresponding to a maximum HFN of at least one first HFN (Xu explains the relationship between SN range and HFN rollover 0302 and 0439. Since Xu supports this correlation of max PDCP SN to max HFN, limitation is disclosed or would be directly derivable from Xu’s DL count/HFN and SN relationships, thereby inherent to Xu).
Regarding claim 11, Xu teaches in a case that the second information is the maximum PDCP SN in the data packet associated with the first PDCP SN in the first data packet group, sending, by the source base station, the second information to the target base station so that the target base station determines the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet according to the second information, comprises: sending, by the source base station, the maximum PDCP SN of the data packet associated with the first PDCP SN in the first data packet group to the target base station, so that the target base station determines a sum of the maximum PDCP SN and a preset value as the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet (Xu disclosure location “wherein the target base station determines a sum of the maximum PDCP SN and a preset value as the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet.” Xu explicitly uses “sum of the maximum PDCP SN and a preset value” to derive next PDCP SN in some embodiments- see 0211, 0212 and 0300–0311).
Regarding claim 14. Xu teaches in a case that the second information is the identification information, sending, by the source base station, the second information to the target base station so that the target base station determines the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet according to the second information, comprises: sending, by the source base station, the identification information to the target base station, so that the target base station determines a sum of a preset value and the PDCP SN associated with the last data packet before the identification information as the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet, wherein the identification information identifies that the source base station ends forwarding of the data packet in the first data packet group (Xu teaches end marker indicating completion of forwarding – 0300-0308, 0433 and 0446).
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 7-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu.
Regarding claim 7, Xu teaches that in a case that the second information is the indication signaling, sending, by the source base station, the second information to the target base station so that the target base station determines the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet according to the second information, comprises: sending, by the source base station, the indication signaling to the target base station, wherein the indication signaling comprises an indication value, so that the target base station determines the indication value as the second PDCP SN associated with the second data packet (Xu describes indication signaling in which an indication value is sent, target interprets that value as next PDCP SN – paragraphs 0285, 0300–0308 and 0439, further teaches about indication signaling and using its value as next SN, e.g., Method descriptions where target uses indication value to determine next PDCP SN - therefore expressly discloses sending an indication value that the target treats as the next PDCP SN).
However while Xu discloses determining SN algorithmically, Xu is silent to determining SN via explicit signaling value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to transmit the PDCP SN as a signaling value in the exchanged information instead of requiring the target base station to derive the SN solely through algorithm inference. Doing so would simplify the handover procedure and reduce computational complexity.
Worth noting that such modification represents a predictable variation of Xu’s system and merely involves providing explicitly via signaling a value that Xu already required the target base station to determine.
Regarding claim 8. Xu teaches the indication value is a sum of a preset value and a PDCP SN of a data packet in the first data packet group that is the last data packet associated with SN in the at least one first PDCP SN (Xu describes deriving next SN by adding a preset value to a PDCP SN or max SN (Examples: target determines “sum of maximum PDCP SN and a preset value” as next PDCP SN- paragraphs 0211–0212, 0300–0311 and 0285–0289. Xu explicitly discloses deriving next SN by adding a preset offset to a known PDCP SN (e.g., last SN or maximum SN). Therefore Xu discloses a next-SN computed as preset + last/maximum SN and is an inherent and recognizable computation).
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches the case that the first data packet group sent by the source base station to the target base station is not lost, not sending, by the source base station, a second HFN to the target base station (Xu- 0327 and 0435).
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches a case that the first data packet group sent by the source base station to the target base station is lost, sending, by the source base station, a second HFN to the target base station (Xu- 0301, 0327, 0435 and 0438).
Regarding claim 12, Xu teaches a part of the data packets in the first data packet group are associated with SNs in the at least one first PDCP SN (Xu- 0016-0017, 0163-0169 and 0301).
Regarding claim 13, Xu teaches the second data packet is a data packet sent from a core network device and/or a data packet in the first data packet group that is not associated with SN in the at least one first PDCP SN (Xu- 0162, 0293).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDAN ORGAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7884. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 director, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights