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
The Amendment filed 10/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 115-118, 121-125 and 133 have been amended. Claims 138 and 139 are newly added. Claim 120 and 132 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims ; they are not persuasive.
First argument,
Shirivastava's disclosure is not prior art.
The present Application is a U.S. national stage entry of international application
PCT/EP2021/081421 filed Nov. 11, 2021. The present Application also claims priority to U.S. provisional application 63/113,306 filed Nov. 13, 2020. These priority claims were properly made in the Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed with the Application.
According to MPEP 2152.01, "if the application properly claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a provisional application, the effective filing date of a claimed invention is the filing date of the provisional application for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112 by the provisional application." Appellant submits that the pending claims "are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112" by at least the following disclosure in the provisional application:
-Claim-like examples 1-30 on pages 23-28;
-Page 10, line 9 - page 15, line 12; and
-Figures 3-5 and their description at page 17, line 9 - page 19, line 33.
Accordingly, the present Application is entitled to an effective filing date of Nov. 13, 2020, i.e., the filing date of the priority U.S. provisional.
Shirivastava is a publication of the U.S. national-stage entry of international application PCT/KR2021/014854 filed Oct. 21, 2021, which is after the effective filing date of the present Application. Shirivastava also claims priority to two Indian (IN) applications: 1) an initial IN application filed Oct. 22, 2020, and 2) a subsequent IN application filed Sep. 27, 2021. Note that only the initial IN application was filed before the effective filing date of the present Application.
According to MPEP 2154.01(b), "for prior art determinations under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, the provisional or other earlier application(s) to which the reference patent document claims a right of priority or benefit must 'describe[] the subject matter' relied upon in the reference patent document as prior art." In particular, "AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) requires that a prior-filed application to which a priority or benefit claim is made must describe the subject matter from the U.S. patent document relied upon in a rejection." Since only Shirivastava's initial IN priority application was filed before the effective filing date of the present Application, Shirivastava's initial IN priority application "must 'describe[] the subject matter' relied upon in" Shirivastava for the obviousness rejections of the independent claims.
According to MPEP 2142, "the examiner bears the initial burden of using facts and reasoning to establish a prima facie conclusion of obviousness" using the Graham inquiries required by the Supreme Court. Even so, "before answering Graham's 'content' inquiry, it must be known whether a patent or publication is in the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. ... If it is established that a disclosure does not qualify as prior art under an appropriate section of 35 U.S.C. 102, then the disclosure is also not prior art that can be used in an obviousness rejection." MPEP 2141.01(I).
However, the Examiner did not establish that Shirivastava's disclosure "is in the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102" as required by MPEP 2141.01(I). In particular, the Examiner did not provide any evidence showing that Shirivastava's initial IN priority application "describes the subject matter" from Shirivastava relied upon in the rejections. This is part of the Examiner's "initial burden" to establish the "prima facie conclusion of obviousness." The Examiner did not meet this burden.
According to Applicant's own review of Shirivastava's initial IN priority application, it does not"describes the subject matter" from Shirivastava relied upon in the rejections. For example, Shirivastava's initial IN priority application has nothing that resembles Figure 9 relied upon in the rejections. However, Applicant does not have an initial burden to prove that this disclosure is not in the prior art; the Examiner has the initial burden to prove that it is. Since this initial burden has not been met, the obviousness rejections should be withdrawn.
Reply, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Shrivastava’s priority application contains the support relied upon for the rejection. For example, the support for cited elements of figure 9 can be found in paragraphs [0016] and [0017] of PCT/KR2021/014854 based on a priority IN application filed on October, 22, 2020 cited below.
“[0016] In an embodiment herein, PDCP status report is utilized to avail retransmission of the PDCP PDUs which are missed. [0017] In an embodiment herein, the UE receives MBS service on source cell when undergoes handover and on the target cell, transmits PDCP status report as the first uplink PDU on the PTP path to inform the target cell on the reception status of the PDCP PDUs. More specifically the PDCP status report carries the FMS (first missing Sequence number) for the PDCP PDU which is not yet received successfully by PDCP and a bitmap indicating the received or not received PDCP PDU SN following the FMS. Based on the PDCP status report the transmitting entity on the target cell will conduct retransmissions on PTP path of the PDCP PDUs that are indicated as missing.”
Although not explicitly depicted in a figure, one having ordinary level of skill in the art can reasonably determine the steps cited from figure 9 based on the written disclosure.
Hence, examiner maintains that Shrivastava meets the requirements under 102(a)(2).
Second argument,
Shirivastava and Huang do not disclose all the features of the independent claims.
In the OA (at 5, 7-9), the Examiner found that Shirivastava [0034], [0175]-[0177], Figure 9 and Huang [0070]-[0071] disclose all the features of the independent claims. A closer inspection shows various errors in these findings.
Shirivastava [0034] cited by the Examiner discloses generally that "the embodiments herein disclose a UE for handling lossless operations for a MBS in a 5G communication network." However, Shirivastava is silent about anything related to the UE being in "RRC_INACTIVE state," which the Examiner correctly recognizes. OA at 5 ("SHIRIVASTAVA does not explicitly teach data loss occurring while the UE was in an RRC_INACTIVE state."). Instead, Shirivastava discloses retransmission of MBS PDUs that a UE may miss during various UE procedures in RRC_CONNECTED, such as discussed in [0013] repeated below:
The embodiments herein disclose methods for handling lossless operations for a MBS in a 5G communication network. The method includes receiving, by a network entity, a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) status report from a UE. The PDCP status report includes missing Protocol Data Unit (PDU) information. The missing PDU is detected during at least one of a MBS bearer type
change, a MBS data transfer and a handover procedure involving a MBS bearer.
Shirivastava [0007] also discloses that "Multicast and broadcast services are primarily downlink and therefore, transmitter is typically the network node (e.g. gNB) and receiver is UE or a group of UEs."
Although Huang discloses a UE in RRC_INACTIVE state, Huang is completely silent about MBS and addresses an uplink data problem that is completely unrelated to MBS, which is "primary downlink" as disclosed by Shirivastava and well known to skilled persons. For example, Huang [0021] discloses the problem as "for the UE in RRC _ INACTIVE state, since the data transmission without state transition is not supported in the current standard, whenever the UE has data to transmit, the UE has to enter RRC _ CONNECTED state first and then initiate the data transmission." Huang [0026] further discloses that "the present embodiments relate to enabling data transmission in an inactive state," which refers to the UE's "data to transmit."
…
In a second alternative, the UE can initiate the resume procedure with RRCResumeRequest, and it can be up to NW to determine whether to use INACTIVE data transmission or reconfigure the UE to RRC CONNECTED state. In this procedure, the NW can configure the PDCP recovery/re-establishment procedure to trigger the retransmission of the PDCP PDU, which was transmitted together with the RRCResumeRequest message, if any.
To summarize, the UE may "initiate the INACTIVE data transmission" either "within the area configured" or by including the data (i.e., PDCP PDU) "together with the RRCResume- Request message" the UE sends to the network. This action is related to data the UE needs to transmit rather than "MBS data previously transmitted by a first RAN node while the UE was in an RRC_INACTIVE state" as recited in the independent claims.
In other words, Huang's "INACTIVE data transmission" is not for "MBS data previously transmitted by a first RAN node" but for data that was generated or obtained by the UE while the UE is in (RRC_)INACTIVE state. This is explained by Huang [0023], repeated below with underline emphasis added:
An example of small and infrequent data traffic can include smartphone applications. Smartphone applications can include traffic from instant messaging services, heartbeat/keep-alive traffic from instant messages (IMs)/email clients and other apps, push notifications from various applications, etc. Another example of small and infrequent data traffic can include non-smartphone applications. Non- smartphone applications can include traffic from wearables (e.g., periodic positioning information), sensors..., smart meters and smart meter networks sending periodic meter readings etc.
For at least these reasons, the combination of Shirivastava and Huang does not disclose all the features of the independent claims. Although Huang discloses a UE in RRC_INACTIVE state, Huang's disclosure is unrelated to MBS transmissions by the network and, in fact, solves a problem related to UE transmissions of data in the opposite direction (i.e., uplink instead of downlink). As such, a skilled person starting with Shirivastava would not consider Huang to provide the features missing from Shirivastava. At a minimum, combining Huang with Shirivastava would require significant modifications to Huang's principle of operation, which is impermissible for a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP 2143.01(VI) ("If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.").
Reply, examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Shrivastava teaches PDCP procedures for lossless MBS ([0175] “…step by step operations for handling the lossless operations for the MBS in the 5G communication network…”).
Huang teaches the packets being dropped while the UE is RRC_INACTIVE state ([0071] In a second alternative, the UE can initiate the resume procedure with RRCResumeRequest, and it can be up to NW to determine whether to use INACTIVE data transmission or reconfigure the UE to RRC_CONNECTED state. In this procedure, the NW can configure the PDCP recovery/re-establishment procedure to trigger the retransmission of the PDCP PDU, which was transmitted together with the RRCResumeRequest message, if any.).
While the disclosure in Huang is mainly aimed at MO small data transmissions (Huang [0070]-[0071]), Huang does not eliminate the possibility of using reception resources during RRC_INACTIVE state, for example Huang paragraph [0139].
“[0139] Other resource for transmission/reception in INACTIVE state. The resource may include C-RNTI, I-RNTI, Searchspace, CORESET, SRS resource, PUCCH resource, PUSCH resource, and/or BWP configuration for inactive data transmission. The resource mentioned above can be the same with the resource used for connected state or can be different from the resource used for connected state (i.e. resource specific for inactive state). In some embodiments, the UE can use the resource once the inactive data transmission is initiated. In some embodiments, the UE can use the resource once the RRC resume message is received and the UE is configured to perform the inactive data transmission. “
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 114-115, 118-119, 125-127, 130-131, and 137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRIVASTAVA et al. (US 20240031066 A1) hereinafter SHIRIVASTAVA in view of Huang (US 20230120407 A1) hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 114,
SHIRIVASTAVA teaches a method for a User Equipment (UE) configured to support service continuity for Multicast and Broadcast Service (MBS) (lossless operations for MBS [0176]-[0177]; Fig. 9), the method comprising: determining whether data loss occurred in MBS data previously transmitted by a first Radio Access Network (RAN) node (determining missing PDU for an MBS session [0034] and [0177]; element 916 of Fig. 9); and sending to a second RAN node a request (sending to the target network entity a report requesting missing PDCP PDUs and triggering retransmission [0177]; element 918 of Fig. 9), wherein when it is determined that the data loss occurred (after determining missing PDUs [0177]; elements 916 and 920 of Fig. 9), the request includes a request for retransmission of one or more missing Packet Data Units (PDUs) from the MBS data (PDCP status report indicating missing PDUs for retransmission [0177]; element 918 of Fig. 9).
SHIRIVASTAVA does not explicitly teach data loss occurring while the UE was in an RRC_INACTIVE state; the request being a request to resume the UE's Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection from the RRC_INACTIVE state.
Huang teaches data loss occurring while the UE was in an RRC_INACTIVE state (PDCP recovery necessitating retransmission for lost data during inactive state transmission [0070]-[0071]); the request being a request to resume the UE's Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection from the RRC_INACTIVE state (RRCResumeRequest triggering PDCP re-establishment procedure [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Huang to the teachings of SHIRIVASTAVA. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable low energy transmission (Huang [0026]).
Regarding claim 115,
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang teach all the features of claim 114, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA further teaches the request includes a first expected count (FEC) based on a sequence number corresponding to a last Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) PDU received by the UE from the first RAN node (PDCP status report carrying a First Missing Sequence number, FMS, based on the last received PDU from a source network entity [0071]).
Regarding claim 118,
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang teach all the features of claim 114, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA further teaches after resuming the UE's RRC connection with the second RAN node (after connecting with a target network entity [0177]; element 914 of Fig. 9), sending to the second RAN node a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) status report indicating the one or more missing PDUs (reporting a bitmap indicating received or not received PDCP PDU SNs [0071]).
Claims [126, 127, and 130] “UE device” (UE with processor and memory [0140]-[0153]; Fig. 4) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [114, 115, and 118] “UE method”, respectively.
Regarding claim 119,
SHIRIVASTAVA teaches a method for a first radio access Network (RAN) node to provide service continuity for Multicast and Broadcast Service (MBS) (lossless operations for MBS [0176]-[0177]; Fig. 9), the method comprising: receiving from a User Equipment (UE) a request (target network entity receiving a report requesting missing PDCP PDUs and triggering retransmission [0177]; element 918 of Fig. 9); and handling retransmission of the missing PDUs according to the request for retransmission (retransmitting missed PDUs based on report; elements 920 and 922 Fig. 9), wherein the one or missing PDUs were previously transmitted by a second RAN node (source network entity transmitting MBS PDUs which may be determined to be missing by the UE [0175]-[0177]; elements 902 and 916 of Fig. 9).
SHIRIVASTAVA does not explicitly teach request to resume the UE's Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection from an RRC_INACTIVE state, wherein the request to resume includes a request for retransmission of one or more missing Packet Data Units (PDUs) in MBS data associated with an MBS session, wherein the one or missing PDUs were previously transmitted while the UE was in the RRC_INACTIVE state.
Huang teaches request to resume the UE's Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection from an RRC_INACTIVE state (RRCResumeRequest triggering PDCP re-establishment procedure [0071]), wherein the request to resume includes a request for retransmission of one or more missing Packet Data Units (PDUs) in MBS data associated with an MBS session (RRCResumeRequest triggering PDCP re-establishment procedure [0071]), wherein the one or missing PDUs were previously transmitted while the UE was in the RRC_INACTIVE state (initiating back from an inactive state after UE lost PDUs while in inactive mode [0070]-[0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Huang to the teachings of SHIRIVASTAVA. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable low energy transmission (Huang [0026]).
Claims [131 and 137] “RAN node” (network entity with processor and memory [0154]-[0162]; Fig. 5) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [119, 120, and 125] “RAN method”, respectively.
Claims 116, 117, 128, and 129 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRIVASTAVA in view of Huang in further view of Kim et al. (US 20250240671 A1) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 116,
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang teach all the features of claim 115, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA further teaches setting the FEC according to the following:
when it is determined that the data loss did not occur, a value greater than the sequence number corresponding to the last PDCP PDU received by the UE from the first RAN node (FMS indicating PDCP PDU which is not yet received from a first network entity [0071] and [0175]-[0177]).
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang do not explicitly teach when it is determined that the data loss occurred, a value less than or equal to the sequence number corresponding to the last PDCP PDU received by the UE.
Kim teaches when it is determined that the data loss occurred, a value less than or equal to the sequence number corresponding to the last PDCP PDU received by the UE (FMS being the smallest SN or count value for the missing PDCP SNs [0422]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Kim to the teachings of SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would compress uplink data (Kim [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 117,
SHIRIVASTAVA, Huang, and Kim teach all the features of claim 116, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA further teaches setting the FEC is based on one of the following: all bits of the sequence number, or X least significant bits of the sequence number (FMS based on sequence number bits [0071] and [0110]).
Claims [128 and 129] “UE device” (UE with processor and memory [0140]-[0153]; Fig. 4) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [116 and 117] “UE method”, respectively.
Claims 121, 133, 138 and 139 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRIVASTAVA in view of Huang in further view of DI GOROLAMO et al. (US 20230388866 A1) hereinafter DI GOROLAMO.
Regarding claim 121,
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang teach all the features of claim 119, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA further teaches handling retransmission of the missing PDUs according to the request for retransmission comprises: based on a first expected count (FEC) included in the request (based on FMS included in the report [0017] and [0071]), determining whether the missing PDUs are available at the first RAN node (determining PDCP PDUs for retransmission [0176]-[0177]; element 920 of Fig. 9), wherein the FEC is based on a sequence number corresponding to a last PDCP PDU received by the UE (PDCP status report carrying a First Missing Sequence number, FMS, based on the last received PDU from a source network entity [0071]); and continuing the session by transmitting to the UE the missing PDUs (retransmitting the missing MBS PDUs [0176]-[0177]; Fig. 9).
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang do not explicitly teach when it is determined that the missing PDUs are unavailable at the first RAN node, requesting the second RAN node to transmit the missing PDUs to the first RAN node; establishing an MBS session at the first RAN node for the UE; and continuing the MBS session by transmitting missing PDUs along with MBS data that the first RAN node receives from a Multicast Broadcast User Plane Function (MB-UPF).
DI GOROLAMO teaches when it is determined that the missing PDUs are unavailable at the first RAN node (determining progress gap between target gNB and source gNB [0206]-[0226]), requesting the second RAN node to transmit the missing PDUs to the first RAN node (Handover acknowledgement causing the source gNB to forward missing PDCP PDUs to the target gNB [0228]-[0237]); establishing an MBS session at the first RAN node for the UE (establishing shared transmission sessions with the target gNB [0228]-[0237]; Figs. 14 and 17); and continuing the MBS session by transmitting missing PDUs along with MBS data that the first RAN node receives from a Multicast Broadcast User Plane Function (MB-UPF) (transmitting PDUs handed over along with other PDUs received from the UPF [0228]-[0237]; Figs. 14 and 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of DI GOROLAMO to the teachings of SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for lossless MBS transmission (DI GOROLAMO [0003]).
Regarding claim 138,
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang and DI GOROLAMO teach all the features of claim 121, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA the FEC is based on one of the following: all bits of the sequence number (FMS included in the report [0017] and [0071]), or X least significant bits of the sequence number.
Please note that while the FMS mentioned as merely being included in the report, it’s obvious to one having ordinary level of skill in the art to have it represented in bit form.
Claims [133 and 139] “RAN node” (network entity with processor and memory [0154]-[0162]; Fig. 5) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [121 and 138] “RAN method”, respectively.
Claims 122 and 134 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRIVASTAVA in view of Huang in further view of Xu et al. (US 20220322159 A1) hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 122,
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang teach all the features of claim 119, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang do not explicitly teach when it is determined that the MBS session is unavailable at the first RAN node, requesting the second RAN node to forward MBS data received from a Multicast Broadcast User Plane Function (MB-UPF), to the first RAN node until the first RAN node receives MBS data from the MB-UPF; establishing an MBS session at the first RAN node for the UE; and continuing the MBS session by transmitting to the UE the MBS data forwarded by the second RAN node and the MBS data received from the MB-UPF.
Xu teaches when it is determined that the MBS session is unavailable at the first RAN node (when MBS session is not configured and enabled in the target base station [0154]-[0166]; Fig. 10), requesting the second RAN node to forward MBS data received from a Multicast Broadcast User Plane Function (MB-UPF) ( handover preparation causing MBS data from the UPF plane to be forwarded to the target base station [0158]-[0161]; elements 1012 and 1020 of Fig.10), to the first RAN node until the first RAN node receives MBS data from the MB-UPF (data forwarding to the target base station until MBS session data from the UPF is received [0161]-[0162]; elements 1020 and 1022 of Fig. 10); establishing an MBS session at the first RAN node for the UE (establishing MBS session at the target base station [0162]; element 1014 of Fig. 10); and continuing the MBS session by transmitting to the UE the MBS data forwarded by the second RAN node and the MBS data received from the MB-UPF (MBS transmission to the UE from MBS data forwarded by the source base station and the UPF [0166]; elements 1030 and 1032 of Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Xu to the teachings of SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for lossless MBS transmission when the target base station is not yet configured and enabled (Xu [0154]).
Claims [134] “RAN node” (network entity with processor and memory [0154]-[0162]; Fig. 5) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [122] “RAN method”, respectively.
Claims 123 and 135 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRIVASTAVA in view of Huang in further view of Li et al. (US 20230345310 A1) hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 123,
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang teach all the features of claim 119, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang do not explicitly teach when it is determined that MBS is not supported by the first RAN node, requesting the second RAN node to release the MBS session and forward MBS data from a Multicast Broadcast User Plane Function (MB-UPF) to the first RAN node; and coordinating with the MB-UPF to establish a PDU session instead of the MBS session.
Li teaches when it is determined that MBS is not supported by the first RAN node (when the target RAN node does not support MBS service [0276]-[0282]), requesting the second RAN node to release the MBS session and forward MBS data from a Multicast Broadcast User Plane Function (MB-UPF) to the first RAN node (triggering delivery mode switch and handover causing the source RAN node to stop MBS data storage and forwarding); and coordinating with the MB-UPF to establish a PDU session instead of the MBS session (coordinating with UPF to establish PDU session instead of shared session [0276]-[0282]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Li to the teachings of SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow meeting QoS requirements and prevent data loss (Li [0278]).
Claims [135] “RAN node” (network entity with processor and memory [0154]-[0162]; Fig. 5) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [123] “RAN method”, respectively.
Claims 124 and 136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRIVASTAVA in view of Huang in further view of DAO et al. (US 20190158985 A1) hereinafter DAO.
Regarding claim 124,
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang teach all the features of claim 119, as outlined above.
SHIRIVASTAVA further teaches handling retransmission of the missing PDUs according to the request for retransmission comprises: based on a first expected count (FEC) included in the request (based on FMS included in the report [0017] and [0071]), determining whether the missing PDUs are available at the first RAN node (determining PDCP PDUs for retransmission [0176]-[0177]; element 920 of Fig. 9), wherein the FEC is based on a sequence number corresponding to a last PDCP PDU received by the UE (PDCP status report carrying a First Missing Sequence number, FMS, based on the last received PDU from a source network entity [0071]).
SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang do not explicitly teach when it is determined that the missing PDUs are unavailable at the first RAN node, requesting one of the following to transmit the missing PDUs to the second RAN node: a Multicast Broadcast User Plane Function (MB-UPF), or other RAN nodes in the same service area as the first RAN node.
DAO teaches when it is determined that the missing PDUs are unavailable at the first RAN node (when PDUs are not available at the RAN [0230]-[0237]), requesting one of the following to transmit the missing PDUs to the second RAN node: a Multicast Broadcast User Plane Function (MB-UPF) (requesting the UPF to retransmit PDUs [0230]-[0237]), or other RAN nodes in the same service area as the first RAN node.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of DAO to the teachings of SHIRIVASTAVA and Huang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance support for MBS (DAO [0003]).
Claims [136] “RAN node” (network entity with processor and memory [0154]-[0162]; Fig. 5) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [124] “RAN method”, respectively.
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 ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465