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
Applicant’s response, filed 14 April 2026 has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-3 are amended and currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 regarding the rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the following on pages 6-7 of the response:
“As indicated above, Zhao, in the cited paragraph, merely describes that the RRC connection reconfiguration message includes the re-establishment parameters when PDCP and RLC entities re-establish. In other words, the re-establishment parameters, as taught by Zhao, are configuration parameters that are used during the reestablishment procedure.
Zhao, however, does not disclose that the re-establishment parameters are used to indicate or trigger whether the reestablishment should occur. Applicant respectfully submits that the re-establishment parameters, as taught by Zhao, are used at the time of performing reestablishment, not to instruct the UE to initiate the reestablishment action for RLC entity or PDCP entity. Consequently, the UE cannot determine from these re-establishment parameters whether the RLC entity or the PDCP entity is required to be reestablished, as they serve a completely different purpose and are only relevant after the re-establishment has been triggered by some other condition or indication not disclosed in Zhao.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with the characterization of the claim scope. It is first noted, with regards to Applicant’s statement that (emphasis added by the Office) “the re-establishment parameters are used to indicate or trigger whether the reestablishment should occur” is not commensurate with the claim language as currently drafted. The claim language does not require “triggering” as stated by Applicant. Rather, the claim language recites “the first parameter indicating whether a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity is to be reestablished and the second parameter indicating whether a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity is to be reestablished.” The content, format and structure of the respective parameters are not further defined in the claim. Likewise, the manner in which either parameter indicates each respective entity “is to be reestablished” is also not further defined in the claim. It is further noted, with respect to Applicant’s statement that Zhao’s parameters are (emphasis added by the Office) “not to instruct the UE to initiate the reestablishment action for RLC entity or PDCP entity,” an instruction to the UE to initiate a reestablishment action is not claimed. Lastly, Applicant’s statement that the UE (in Zhao) cannot determine from these re-establishment parameters whether the RLC entity or the PDCP entity is required to be reestablished” is not commensurate in scope with the claim language as currently drafted. The claimed parameters indicate whether the respective entities are to be re-established, but the manner in which the parameters trigger the UE to do so, or any further determinative steps performed by the UE that would allow the UE to conclude entity reestablishment (or lack thereof) is necessary, is not claimed.
In light of the claim language, as currently drafted, the Office further respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Zhao’s teachings. As shown in both Figures 7 and 8, and detailed in the cited paragraphs 0085 and 0092, the network side device transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration message to the UE. The RRC connection reconfiguration message either comprises re-establishment parameters when PDCP and RLC entities reestablish (paragraph 0085) or configuration parameters that do not trigger (i.e., the UE forgoes) reestablishment of PDCP and RLC entities (paragraph 0092). Absent further detail in the claim language, the Office submits that Zhao’s disclosure reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as currently drafted.
The rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0142361), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao discloses a method performed by a base station, the method comprising:
transmitting a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message to a User Equipment (UE), the RRC message including a first parameter and a second parameter, the first parameter indicating whether a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity is to be reestablished and the second parameter indicating whether a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity is to be reestablished (Figures 7 and 8, paragraphs 0085 and 0092 – the network side device transmits RRC connection reconfiguration to a UE comprising configuration parameters that either do not trigger re-establishment of the PDCP or RLC entities (paragraph 0092) or trigger PDCP and RLC entity re-establishment (paragraph 0085), wherein:
the UE reestablishes the RLC entity in a case that the first parameter indicates that the RLC entity is to be reestablished (paragraph 0085 - the re-establishment parameters trigger RLC entity re-establishment),
the UE forgoes reestablishing the RLC entity in a case that the first indication parameter indicates that the RLC entity is not to be reestablished (paragraph 0092 – RLC is not re-established),
the UE reestablishes the PDCP entity in a case that the second parameter indicates that the PDCP entity is to be reestablished (paragraph 0085 – PDCP is reestablished), and
the UE forgoes reestablishing the PDCP entity in a case that the second parameter indicates that the PDCP entity is not to be reestablished (paragraph 0092 – PDCP is not re-established).
Claim 2 is directed to a base station comprising transmitting circuitry configured to transmit the RRC message as claimed in Claim 1. Zhao discloses a network side device (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0104-0107) comprising a sending module 1002 that sends RRC connection reconfiguration message to the UE. The limitations regarding the RRC message are rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 1.
Claim 3 is directed to a UE comprising receiving circuitry configured to receive the RRC message from a base station as claimed in Claim 1. Zhao discloses a UE (Figure 11 and paragraphs 0113-0114) comprising a receiving module 1101 that receives RRC connection reconfiguration message sent from the network side device. The limitations regarding the RRC message are rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 1.
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights