Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on April 22, 2026. Claims 48-68 are currently pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 48, 57, 62, and 66-68 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed on April 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
After carefully revising the office action pertinent to the present response and remarks, the following main point(s) have been identified:
1) The Applicant, at page 10 and 11 of the Applicant’s remarks, states the following:
“Claims 48, 57, 62, 66, 67, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim. Office Action at Pages 2 and 3. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection on the basis that Kim does not teach all recitations of independent Claims 48, 57, 62, and 66-68.
For example, independent Claim 48 recites:”… wherein the wireless device
exchanges duplicate packets with one or more target base stations in the
target base station group using the first and second logical connections.”
(Emphasis added.)
Regarding point 1), Kim, at paragraph 51 discloses “second PDCP layer device structure may refer to a structure in which a first bearer (for example, RLC layer device, MAC layer device, or PHY layer device) for the source base station and a second bearer (for example, RLC layer device, MAC layer device, or PHY layer device) for the target base station are both connected to a single PDCP layer device, and uplink data is transmitted through one of the first bearer or the second bearer through the PDCP layer device.” This clearly discloses two simultaneously maintained bearer-level communication paths; first bearer and a second bearer, each can be construed as separate logical channel, which exchange duplicate packets with the source and target base stations. Furthermore, at paragraph 77, KIM discloses “the PDCP layer device of the first bearer and the PDCP layer device of the second bearer operate as a logically single PDCP layer device.” This is clear evidence that the argued feature is taught by KIM.
2) The Applicant, at page 12 of the Applicant’s remarks, states the following:
“However, the Office Action does not identify a disclosure in Kim of the claimed
integration of packet duplication and DAPS in a single handover flow, beginning from an existing packet-duplication mode using first and second logical connections and transitioning to DAPS on both logical connections during the handover”
Regarding point 2), the Examiner was not able to find in the claim invention the argued feature “integration of packet duplication and DAPS in a single handover flow,” therefore, the response to this argument is moot.
Therefore, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
4. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
5. 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 extension fee 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 Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
May 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights