DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 07/08/2026 .
Claims 11-15, 21-24, 30-37, 39-41 are pending and are examined in this office action.
Claims 11, 21, 30, 34-35, 37 have been amended.
New claims 39-41 has been added and claims 1-10, 16-20 25-29, 38, have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 07/08/2026 , with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The Examiner found features modified to claims, i.e claim 1 as “11. (Currently Amended) A terminal device, comprising:
a memory having a computer program stored thereon, and
a processor configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory, to cause the terminal device to perform:
receiving a handover command that instructs the terminal device to be handed over from a source cell to a target cell in a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover mode; and
performing, when the DAPS handover fails and no radio link failure in the source cell is detected, the following:
re-establishing a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity corresponding to at least one Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB) of the source cell; and
triggering a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) Service Data Unit (SDU) deletion process;
wherein when the terminal device re-establishes the RLC entity corresponding to the at least SRB of the source cell, the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program to cause the terminal device further to perform:
deleting all data in a buffer of the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB, the all data comprising all RLC SDUs, all RLC Protocol Data Units (PDUs), and RLC SDU segments; and
resetting a timer configured in the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB, and initializing a state variable of the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB;
wherein when the terminal device triggers the PDCP SDU deletion process, the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program to cause the terminal device further to perform:
deleting all PDCP PDUs and PDCP SDUs of a PDCP entity corresponding to the at least one SRB.”
that have changed the scope of the invention, Therefore, Applicant’s remarks regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 for the claims are moot. Applicant's remarks are considered as forward looking statement for the newly reconstructed claims.
In view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, the examiner has clarified and remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations in details, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims as well a new prior art. See over 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 ( Meeting #107bis ; Chongqing, China, 14th - 18th October 2019; Agenda Item: 7.3.2.1.1; Source: ETRI; Title: PDCP/RLC Re-establishment in DAPS Handover; Document for: Discussion and Decision; R2-1913795 ( hereinafter as “3GPPR21913795”; provided in IDS).
Examiner’s NOTE: there are many “OR” functions in the claims. The examiner will addressed any one of the “OR” function unless excessively mentioned by the examiner.
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 11-15, 21-24, 30-37, 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20220217594 A1; hereinafter as “KIM7594”) in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 ( Meeting #107bis ; Chongqing, China, 14th - 18th October 2019; Agenda Item: 7.3.2.1.1; Source: ETRI; Title: PDCP/RLC Re-establishment in DAPS Handover; Document for: Discussion and Decision; R2-1913795 ( hereinafter as “3GPPR21913795”; provided in IDS).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to KIM7594 unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independence claim:
Regarding claim 11, KIM7594 teaches, A terminal device (see fig. 10: UE, Fig. 15, Fig. 17: UE “ FIG. 15 shows an example of a method for a source RRM handling according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. Steps illustrated in FIG. 15 may be performed by a wireless device and/or a UE.”: [0188]) ), comprising:
a memory having a computer program stored thereon, and a processor configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory (see fig. 17: UE with Processor, memory , DSP/Microprocessor with computer code : : [0257]-[[0266]),
to cause the terminal device (==UE ) to perform, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
497
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving a handover command that instructs the terminal device (==UE) to be handed over from a source cell to a target cell in a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover mode (UE receives “measurement configuration from a source cell, initiate a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) mobility (==handover command which connected to source as well) from the source cell to a target cell, detect a failure of the DAPS mobility, and after detecting the failure of the DAPS mobility: control the transceiver to transmit information for the failure of the DAPS mobility to the source cell, and perform a radio resource management (RRM) measurement on one or more neighbor cells based on the measurement configuration received from the source cell.”; “ For example, the UE may perform an RRM measurement on one or more neighbor cells after a handover failure based on a source cell configuration so that a new handover can be initiated quickly. Since performing RRM of a source cell after the handover failure may prevent RRC re-establishment procedure and the UE may be able to keep sending data transmission to the source cell, interruption time can be further reduced.”: [0011]-[0015]; see fig. 15 element S1501, aforesaid UE receives measurement configuration and calculate radio resource management (RRM) (==handover command ) in wireless communications from a source cell to start handover to target cell , “ Referring to FIG. 15, in step S1501, the wireless device may receive a measurement configuration from a source cell. The measurement configuration may be a kind of a source cell configuration (i.e., configuration received from the source cell). The measurement configuration may comprise RRM configuration.
[0190] In step S1503, the wireless device may initiate a DAPS mobility (==handover command) from the source cell to a target cell. The wireless device may initiate the DAPS mobility in which a connection to both of the source cell and the target cell is maintained during a mobility procedure. ”: [0189]-0190] ) and
performing, when the DAPS handover fails and no radio link failure in the source cell is detected, (see fig. 15 element S1505; aforesaid UE detect a failure of The DAPS mobility : “ In step S1505, the wireless device may detect a failure of the DAPS mobility. For example, the wireless device may detect a failure of the DAPs mobility upon an expiry of a mobility validity timer such as T 304 and/or a reconfiguration error such as invalid configuration for the target cell.”: [0191]; NOTE: no radio link failure in the source cell is detected ), the following:
re-establishing a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity corresponding to at least one Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB) of the source cell ( “ In summary, upon DAPS handover failure, UE may revert back (== re-establishing a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity) to the source cell configuration prior to a reception of the handover command (including RLC and PDCP state)… ”: [0256] ; “ the RRC layer controls logical channels, transport channels, and physical channels in relation to the configuration, reconfiguration, and release of radio bearers. A radio bearer refers to a logical path provided by L1 (PHY layer) and L2 (MAC/RLC/PDCP/SDAP sublayer) for data transmission between a UE and a network. Setting the radio bearer means defining the characteristics of the radio protocol layer and the channel for providing a specific service, and setting each specific parameter and operation method. Radio bearer may be divided into signaling RB (SRB) and data RB (DRB). The SRB is used as a path for transmitting RRC messages in the control plane, and the DRB is used as a path for transmitting user data in the user plane.”: [0098]; “ MAC entity and SRB PDCP entity of the target protocol may be used to perform the transmission of the RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete message.”: [0166]); upon “out-of-sync” indication for Pcell, retransmissions /re-establishing RLC corresponding to SRB of the Pcell: [0172]).
While KIM7594 teaches, re-establishing a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity corresponding to at least one Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB) of the source cell,
KIM7594 does not expressively disclose:
and triggering a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) Service Data Unit (SDU) deletion process;
wherein when the terminal device re-establishes the RLC entity corresponding to the at least SRB of the source cell, the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program to cause the terminal device further to perform;
deleting all data in a buffer of the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB, the all data comprising all RLC SDUs, all RLC Protocol Data Units (PDUs), and RLC SDU segments; and
resetting a timer configured in the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB, and initializing a state variable of the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB;
wherein when the terminal device triggers the PDCP SDU deletion process, the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program to cause the terminal device further to perform;
deleting all PDCP PDUs and PDCP SDUs of a PDCP entity corresponding to the at least one SRB.
3GPPR21913795, in the same field of endeavor, discloses:
and triggering a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) Service Data Unit (SDU) deletion process (in RLC re-establishment procedure, UE shall deliver all reassembled RLC SDUs to upper layer, DISCARD all RLC SDUs and reset all state variables to their initial values : Proposal 4, Observation 5: Page 3);
wherein when the terminal device re-establishes the RLC entity corresponding to the at least SRB of the source cell, the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program to cause the terminal device further to perform ( “ What would be the expected UE behaviour when the DAPS handover fails? Option 1: Report the DAPS handover failure via the source link without triggering RRC connection re-establishment ”: Page 1 last few lines; “ allow the UE to report the target link failure or DAPS handover failure via aSRBx of the source link”: page 2 first few lines );
deleting all data in a buffer of the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB, the all data comprising all RLC SDUs, all RLC Protocol Data Units (PDUs), and RLC SDU segments (DAPS fails , “UE releases (==deleting all data ) the SRB for the source cell”: “ UE performs PDCP/RLC re-establishment procedure for SRB after deciding when the UE releases the SRB for the source cell”: Page 2 lines 3-10; “LTE RLC re-establishment procedure for AM DRB, the UE shall deliver all reassembled RLC SDUs to upper layer in ascending order of the RLC SN, discard all SDUs and PDUs, and reset all state variables to their initial values.” : page 3 Observation 5; “ discard all RLC SDUs, RLC SDU segments, and RLC PDUs”: Page 4 Observation 6 ); and
resetting a timer configured in the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB, and initializing a state variable of the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB (in RLC re-establishment procedure, UE shall deliver all reassembled RLC SDUs to upper layer, DISCARD all RLC SDUs and reset all state variables to their initial values : Proposal 4, Observation 5: Page 3; “In NR, when upper layers request an RLC entity re-establishment, the UE shall: - discard all RLC SDUs, RLC SDU segments, and RLC PDUs, if any; - stop and reset all timers; - reset all state variables to their initial values. ” Page 4, Observation 6 );
wherein when the terminal device triggers the PDCP SDU deletion process, the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program to cause the terminal device further to perform (“ What would be the expected UE behaviour when the DAPS handover fails? Option 1: Report the DAPS handover failure via the source link without triggering RRC connection re-establishment ”: Page 1 last few lines; “ allow the UE to report the target link failure or DAPS handover failure via aSRBx of the source link”: page 2 first few lines) ;
deleting all PDCP PDUs and PDCP SDUs of a PDCP entity corresponding to the at least one SRB ( DAPS fails , “UE releases (==deleting all data ) the SRB for the source cell”: “ UE performs PDCP/RLC re-establishment procedure for SRB after deciding when the UE releases the SRB for the source cell”: Page 2 lines 3-10; “LTE RLC re-establishment procedure for AM DRB, the UE shall deliver all reassembled RLC SDUs to upper layer in ascending order of the RLC SN, discard all SDUs and PDUs, and reset all state variables to their initial values.” : page 3 Observation 5; “ discard all RLC SDUs, RLC SDU segments, and RLC PDUs”: “ In NR, when upper layers request an RLC entity re-establishment, the UE shall: discard all RLC SDUs, RLC SDU segments, and RLC PDUs, if any; stop and reset all timers;
reset all state variables to their initial values.
From our understanding, in NR DAPS handover, when the UE applies the target cell configuration, the UE does:
configure the AM RLC entity for the target cell in accordance with the received target cell configuration;
discard all RLC SDUs and RLC PDUs in the transmitting side, if we stick to the agreements in RAN2#107 meeting);
however, not discard RLC SDUs and RLC PDUs in the receiving side, and not stop and reset all timers and not reset all state variables to their initial values. ”: Page 4 Observation 6 ‘’);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KIM7594 to include the above recited limitations as taught by 3GPPR21913795. The suggestion/motivation would be improve interruption time during UE’s re-establishment procedure (3GPPR21913795; [0002]).
With respect to dependence claim:
Regarding claim 12, KIM7594 in view of 3GPPR21913795 teaches the invention of claim 11 as set forth above. Further, KIM7594 teaches, The terminal device according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory, to cause the terminal device further to perform resuming the at least one SRB of the source cell ( “When the RLF is detected on the target cell after successful HO completion and if the source cell connection is not yet released by the UE, then the UE may resume RLM on the source cell on fallback to the source cell connection.”: [0177]; “ According to various embodiments, upon receiving N310 consecutive “out-of-sync” indications for the PCell while neither T300, T301, T304 nor T311 is running, the UE may start timer T310. Upon the T310 expiry, upon the T312 expiry, upon a random access problem indication from MCG MAC while neither T300, T301, T304 nor T311 is running, or upon indication from MCG RLC, which is allowed to be sent on PCell, that the maximum number of retransmissions has been reached for an SRB or DRB, the UE may consider a radio link failure (RLF) to be detected for the MCG.”[0172]).
Regarding claim 13, KIM7594 in view of 3GPPR21913795 teaches the invention of claim 10 as set forth above. Further, KIM7594 teaches, The terminal device according to claim 11, wherein when the DAPS handover fails and no radio link failure in the source cell is detected, the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory, to cause the terminal device further to perform instructing a PDCP layer corresponding to the at least one SRB of the source cell to suspend the PDCP entity, and deleting all PDC
Regarding claim 14, KIM7594 in view of 3GPPR21913795 teaches the invention of claim 13 as set forth above. Further, 3GPPR21913795 teaches, The terminal device according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory, to cause the terminal device further to perform resetting state information of the PDCP entity corresponding to the at least one SRB ( “ UE performs PDCP/RLC re-establishment procedure for SRB after deciding when the UE releases the SRB for the source cell.”: Page 2 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KIM7594 to include the above recited limitations as taught by 3GPPR21913795. The suggestion/motivation would be improve interruption time during UE’s re-establishment procedure (3GPPR21913795; [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, KIM7594 in view of 3GPPR21913795 teaches the invention of claim 14 as set forth above. Further, 3GPPR21913795 teaches, The terminal device according to claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory, to cause the terminal device further to perform resetting a timer configured in the PDCP entity corresponding to the at least one SRB and/or initializing a state variable of the PDCP entity corresponding to the at least one SRB (“ In LTE, when RRC indicates that an RLC entity should be re-established, the RLC entity shall: -reset all state variables to their initial values.” Page 3 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KIM7594 to include the above recited limitations as taught by 3GPPR21913795. The suggestion/motivation would be improve interruption time during UE’s re-establishment procedure (3GPPR21913795; [0002]).
Regarding claim 39 , KIM7594 in view of 3GPPR21913795 teaches the invention of claim 11 as set forth above. Further, 3GPPR21913795 teaches, The terminal device according to claim 11, wherein the timer configured in the RLC entity corresponding to the at least one SRB of the source cell is a timer used for deletion and ordering (timer used for discard RLC SDUs and RLC PDUs : page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KIM7594 to include the above recited limitations as taught by 3GPPR21913795. The suggestion/motivation would be improve interruption time during UE’s re-establishment procedure (3GPPR21913795; [0002]).
Regarding claim 40, KIM7594 in view of 3GPPR21913795 teaches the invention of claim 15 as set forth above. Further, 3GPPR21913795 teaches, The terminal device according to claim 15, wherein the timer configured in the PDCP entity corresponding to the at least one SRB is a timer used for deletion and ordering (timer used for discard RLC SDUs and RLC PDUs : page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KIM7594 to include the above recited limitations as taught by 3GPPR21913795. The suggestion/motivation would be improve interruption time during UE’s re-establishment procedure (3GPPR21913795; [0002]).
Regarding claim 41, KIM7594 in view of 3GPPR21913795 teaches the invention of claim 12 as set forth above. Further, 3GPPR21913795 teaches, The terminal device according to claim 12, wherein after the terminal device performs re-establishing the RLC entity and triggering the PDCP SDU deletion process, and before the terminal device perform resuming the at least one SRB, the terminal device further performs: for each SRB, when no master key update is received, configuring a PDCP entity for the source cell using the same state variable as a PDCP entity of the target cell; or for each SRB, releasing a PDCP entity of the target cell; or for each SRB, releasing an RLC entity of the target cell and a logical channel associated with the target cell; or releasing a physical channel configuration of the target cell; or resuming a Service Data Adaptation Protocol (SDAP) configuration used in the source cell; or discarding a key used in the target cell (timer used for discard RLC SDUs and RLC PDUs : page 4 ‘ “ NR RLC Re-establishment Procedure for AM DRB
In NR, when upper layers request an RLC entity re-establishment, the UE shall:
discard all RLC SDUs, RLC SDU segments, and RLC PDUs, if any;
stop and reset all timers;
reset all state variables to their initial values.
From our understanding, in NR DAPS handover, when the UE applies the target cell configuration, the UE does:
configure the AM RLC entity for the target cell in accordance with the received target cell configuration;
discard all RLC SDUs and RLC PDUs in the transmitting side, if we stick to the agreements in RAN2#107 meeting);
however, not discard RLC SDUs and RLC PDUs in the receiving side, and not stop and reset all timers and not reset all state variables to their initial values. ”: Page 4 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KIM7594 to include the above recited limitations as taught by 3GPPR21913795. The suggestion/motivation would be improve interruption time during UE’s re-establishment procedure (3GPPR21913795; [0002]).
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 M MOSTAZIR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4785. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm PST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/M Mostazir Rahman/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights