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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15 – 19 and 25 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (US 2023/0284101 A1) in view of Kanamarlapudi et al (US 2021/0306914 A1).
Claim 15 (similarly Claim 25). Dai shows a wireless transmit-receive unit (WTRU) (figs. 6 – 9: UE), the WTRU comprising: a processor (fig. 9: processor; [0102]) configured to: receive a handover command ([0073]: the source BS sends a handover command to the UE); send a connection request to a target cell ([0076]: the UE sends the data receiving status report to the target BS); receive one or more packets from the target cell ([0078]: the target BS sends the missing data packets to the UE according to the data receiving status report via the unicast bearer or the dedicated bearer); and receive one or more packets from a source cell (fig. 6: data packets received in the first cell, e.g. packets from BS 620 to UE 610).Dai does not expressly describe features of: determining, based on at least one of the received one or more packets from the source cell or the received one or more packets from the target cell, that there are no missing packets; and sending, based at least on the determination that there are no missing packets, a release connection request to a resource associated with the source cell.Kanamarlapudi teaches features of: determining, based on at least one of received one or more packets from a source cell and the received one or more packets from a target cell, that there are no missing packets (fig. 9 and [0079]: the source cell 904 may transmit packets for SNs 0-4 to the UE 902 over the air (OTA)… the target cell 906 may also transmit new traffic (e.g. not originated form the source cell 904) such as packets for SNs 20-29); and sending, based at least on the determination that there are no missing packets, a release connection request to a resource associated with the source cell ([0075]: during the DAPS HO, after source cell sending DAPS HO command to UE, it is left to network implementation to use Initialization and Refresh (IR) mode for packets Initialization and Refresh (IR)… it may be possible that source cell may send IR packets after sending DAPS HO command to UE and Target cell send only IR packets to UE until source connection is released; [0079]: after successful RACH to target cell, the UE 902 may transmit a PDCP status report (also referred to as a PDCP status PDU) to the target cell 906 wherein the PDCP status report may indicate which packets were not received by the UE… the UE 902 may indicate that packets for SNs 5-9 were not received, and the target cell 906 may perform retransmission for those packets; [0085]: after successful RACH procedure on target cell, if there are any holes from the source cell before DAPS HO, the UE may report from the first missing packets to all the packets received on the source cell, even though some of the packets are received successfully… although PDCP SNs 5-9 are only missing and SN 10-19 are successfully received from the source cell 904, the UE may still request retransmission for PDCP SNs 5-19 from the target cell).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the “no packet missing before connection release” determination features as taught by Kanamarlapudi in the WTRU of Dai to avoid interference between wireless networks of different Radio Access Technologies.
Claim 16 (similarly claim 26). Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 15, wherein the WTRU is configured for multicast broadcast service (MBS) ([0056]: a UE receives the data packets in PTP mode from the BS, an MBS unicast bearer is established for the data transmission), and wherein being configured for MBS comprises being configured with at least one active multicast radio bearer (MRB) ([0074]: the service ID could be a 5G MBS session ID, or a Temporary Mobile Group Identifier (TMGI), or a Multi Radio Bearer (MRB) ID or a unicast Data Radio Bearer (DRB) ID).
Claim 17 (similarly claim 27). Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 15, wherein the one or more packets from the source cell are received from the source cell after the connection to the target cell (fig. 7 and [0088]: the BS 720 sends the missing data packets 760 to the UE 710).
Claim 18 (similarly claim 28). Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 15, wherein being configured to receive the one or more packets from the source cell comprises being configured to use the resource associated with the source cell to receive the one or more packets from the source cell ([0092]: the MBS receiving status includes the 5G MBS bearer configuration (e.g. the mode type, RRC configuration) of the UE in the source BS).
Claim 19 (similarly claim 29). Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 15, wherein being configured to determine that there are no missing packets comprises being configured to determine that there is not a sequence number gap ([0060]: the data receiving status report may include a maximum common SN of the receiving data packets in sequence, or a bit map of the receiving data packets status (a bitmap indicates which data packets are missing and which data packets are correctly received), or a common SN or count value of the first missing data packet, or a combined data receiving status for the PTP mode and the PTM mode), and wherein the sequence number gap is a gap between sequence numbers of received packets ([0060]: the data receiving status report may include at least a minimum common SN or count value of data packets received in the PTM mode).
Claim 20. Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 15, wherein the resource associated with the source cell is a group-radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) associated with the source cell ([0106]: the multicast bearer is scrambled by a group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) in at least one cell).
Claim 21. Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 15, wherein, after the handover command is received, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) transmission is not sent to the source cell in response to the received one or more packets from the source cell (Dai has no mentioned of “HARQ”; Kanamarlapudi, fig. 7 and [0075]: during the DAPS HO, after source cell sending DAPS HO command to UE, it is left to network implementation to use Initialization and Refresh (IR) mode for packets Initialization and Refresh (IR), to support RoHC context – no HARQ after DAPS HO command in figure 7).
Claim 22. Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 15, wherein the handover command includes at least one condition ([0029]: a UE may receive data from a BS in a PTP mode or in a PTM mode… due to radio link quality change, stricter Quality of Service (QoS) requirement or other conditions change, the network my decide to move the UE to the PTP mode or move the UE to the PTM mode for the MBS data transmission), wherein being configured to release the resource associated with the source cell is further based on the at least one condition being satisfied ([0032]: sending a data receiving status report to a BS during or after a handover from the first cell to a second cell and/or during or after a data transmission mode switching from the first mode to a second mode).
Claim 23 (similarly claim 31). Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 22, wherein the at least one condition is one or more of a specified time duration ([0062]: the UE need at least to receive the data packets in the PTP mode until all the data packets before the data packet #4 are received, then the UE may stop the data reception in the PTP mode… a timer may be configured, if the timer expiry, the UE may stop receiving the data packets in the PTP mode even if not all the missing data packets before the data packet #4 are received), a specified signal level threshold associated with the source cell ([0056]: the radio quality increase, QoS requirement becomes looser, and other conditions change, the network may decide to switch the UE to be in PTM mode for data packets receiving), or a specified signal level threshold associated with the target cell ([0094]: the target BS sends a mode configuration for the second mode to the UE wherein the mode configuration may include a signaling for activating/adding the second mode).
Claim 30. Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the method of claim 25, wherein the resource associated with the source cell is a group-radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) associated with the source cell ([0106]: the multicast bearer is scrambled by a group radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) in at least one cell), and wherein, after the handover command is received, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) transmission is not sent to the source cell in response to the received one or more packets from the source cell (Dai has no mentioned of “HARQ”; Kanamarlapudi, fig. 7 and [0075]: during the DAPS HO, after source cell sending DAPS HO command to UE, it is left to network implementation to use Initialization and Refresh (IR) mode for packets Initialization and Refresh (IR), to support RoHC context – no HARQ after DAPS HO command in figure 7).
Claim 24 (similarly claim 32). Dai, modified by Kanamarlapudi, shows the WTRU of claim 15, wherein being configured to determine that there are no missing packets comprises being configured to determine, based on at least one of the received one or more packets from the source cell or the received one or more packets from the target cell, that received packets satisfy a continuous sequence number condition (Kanamarlapudi, fig. 9 and [0079]: the source cell may also transmit packets for SNs 5-9… the packets for SNs 10-19 may be transmitted by the target cell to the UE – source cell sends SNs 5-9 and target cell sends SNs 10-19 wherein 5-9 then 10-19 are in continuous sequence).
========== ========== ==========
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument – please refer to Dai in view of Kanamarlapudi.
---------- ---------- ----------
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kim et al, US 2008/0069053 A1: a method for performing a handover from a source cell to a target cell by a User Equipment (UE) in a mobile communication system, comprising steps of sending a measurement report on received signal strengths of adjacent cells, to an Node B of the source cell; sending, to the Node B of the source cell, a status report including a sequence number of successfully received packet data and a sequence number of missing packet data; and upon a receipt of a handover command from the Node B of the source cell, performing a handover.
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 Xavier Szewai Wong whose telephone number is 571.270.1780. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:30 am - 8:30 pm Mon to Fri.
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 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.
/XAVIER S WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415 11th March 2026