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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered. Independent Claims 1-3 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims are new and have been entered. Claims 1-3 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 on page 5, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 USC § 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/28/2026 on page 7 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim 1 under 35 USC § 102. The applicant argues that Baek fails to teach data received from a UE and processing the data based on the association with MBS. However, the specific data being processed, or not, in response to the COUNT value, and is a strict binary result for the PTM DRB performing MBS communication, see Baek ¶0081-¶0089. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention of received from a UE and processing the data based on the association with MBS from the teachings of Baek. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/28/2026 on page 8 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim 1 under 35 USC § 102. The applicant argues that Baek fails to teach that RX_NEXT is a sequence number part of the HFN. However, the variable RX_NEXT was not mentioned in arguments, or mapped to, just that there is an “initial value” as defined by Baek in ¶0081. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention of that RX_NEXT is a sequence number part of the HFN, from the teachings of Baek. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Baek (Pub. No.: US 20230111248 A1, hereafter “Baek”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 2, and Claim 3
Baek teaches a terminal apparatus, base station apparatus, and method comprising
A terminal apparatus (Baek Fig. 8: 820) for communicating with a base station apparatus (Baek Fig. 8: 810), the terminal apparatus comprising: a receiver (Baek Fig. 13: 1310) configured to receive data (Baek Fig. 8: 830) from the base station apparatus; and processing circuitry (Baek Fig. 13: 1320) configured to: maintain a first state variable (Baek Fig. 8: 840) in a receiving packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity (Baek ¶0081-¶0089: PDCP; Baek teaches a UE communicating with a BS for receiving a PDCP and calculating a result based off of the PDCP, see Fig. 8, Fig. 13 and ¶0081-¶0089) of the terminal apparatus, and during maintaining the first state variable: determine (Baek Fig. 8: 840, Calculate) whether the data received from the base station apparatus is associated with a multicast broadcast service (MBS) (Baek ¶0081-¶0089: MBS; Baek teaches calculating a variable based off of a MBS, see Fig. 8 and ¶0081-¶0089), set (Baek Fig. 8: 830, Reference Count), in a case that the data received from the base station apparatus is associated with the MBS (Baek ¶0081-¶0089: MBS), an initial value of a sequence number (Baek ¶0081-¶0089: COUNT value) that is part of the first state variable as a first value (Baek ¶0081: initial value; Baek teaches calculating a value based off of an MBS with an initial value, see Fig. 8 and ¶0081-¶0089), and set (Baek Fig. 8: 830, Reference Count), in a case that the data received from the base station apparatus is not associated with the MBS (Baek ¶0081: not configured for a certain PTM DRB), the initial value of the first state variable to 0 (Baek ¶0081: configure the initial value as 0 when performing PTM DRB, e.g. MBS communication; Baek teaches the reference count being set to a value of 0 when the UE is configured for a certain PTM DRB, see Fig. 8 and ¶0081-¶0089), wherein: the first state variable is a state variable indicating a COUNT value (Baek ¶0081-¶0089: COUNT value) of a PDCP service data unit (SDU) (Baek ¶0083: PDCP SDU) that is to be received (Baek Fig. 8: 830), from the base station apparatus (Baek Fig. 8: 810; Baek teaches setting the COUNT value from a received PDCP SDU from the base station, see Fig. 8 and ¶0081-¶0089), next, the first value is a remainder (Baek ¶0081: remainder value) obtained by dividing (Baek ¶0081: dividing), by a second value (Baek ¶0081: the total sequence), a value obtained by adding one (Baek ¶0081: adding 1 to the sequence number of the packets) to a sequence number of a first received (Baek ¶0081: received in the PTM DRB, e.g. the PDCP SDU) PDCP data protocol data unit (PDU) (Baek ¶0081: adding 1 to the sequence number of the packet first received in the PTM DRB, e.g. the PDCP SDU; Baek teaches generating a remainder value by diving by a PDCP SDU that has been incremented by one, see ¶0081), the second value is 2 to a power of a third value (Baek ¶0081: by the total sequence number size 2^(the number of bits of the sequence number size); Baek teaches dividing by 2 to a power, see ¶0081), and the third value is a downlink PDCP sequence number size (Baek ¶0081: the number of bits of the sequence number size, see ¶0081).
Claim 2 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art, Baek teaches
A base station apparatus (Baek Fig. 8: 810) for communicating with a terminal apparatus (Baek Fig. 8: 820), the base station apparatus comprising: a transmitter (Baek Fig. 12: 1210) configured to transmit data to the terminal apparatus; and processing circuitry (Baek Fig. 12: 1320; Baek teaches a base station with processing circuitry with a transmitter transmitting to a UE, see Fig. 8 and Fig. 12)
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 JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights