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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, amendments: A) to claims 7-8 and 14 have overcome the corresponding objections and thus, the corresponding objections are withdrawn; B) to claim 19 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, however, idiomatic issues remain which is described below in the objection.
Applicant’s arguments include:
A) on pages 8-9 “There is no teaching of "sending a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) status report by a PDCP entity of the UE in an uplink (UL) to the target cell. .. ; and performing a UE self-detected PDCP retransmission for UL data transfer."” since “i) The combination fails to teach PDCP status report in the claimed context.” on page 8 and “reordering function of PDCP is not and does not teach nor suggest: • a report triggered by an L2 cell switch (not by SN-gap detection) • sent to the target cell; AND • reporting failures specifically tied to the prior/source cell context ("failed ... to the source cell") and explicitly spanning UL as well as DL failures in the inter-DU switch situation. • In another word, Jin [US 2024/0284280 A1] does not teach nor suggest the condition to trigger the report, the destination of the report, and the content of the PDCP report is completely different from the status report on missing PDCP PDUs as disclosed by Jin. Other than the naming of PDCP status report, the defining element of claim are completely missing.” [emphasis by applicant] The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A) As best understood, applicant’s arguments appear to rely on a particular temporal relationship, however, there is no temporal/causality relationship between the limitations “receiving...” of line 2, “performing...” of line 6, “performing...” of line 8, “sending...” of line 10, and “performing...” of line 15, and Jin merely performing the corresponding functions at some point in time reads on the claimed limitations. The limitation is “sending a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) status report by a PDCP entity of the UE in an uplink (UL) to the target cell [to indicate one or more PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) failed for a downlink (DL)]” which is taught with (packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) 1d-05 of UE transmits status report for missing PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) and requesting retransmission of missing PDCP PDUs [failed downlink (DL)]; para. 103 and Fig. 1D, DL and UL include radio bearer; para. 89, blocks (PDCP 1d-05) performed by hardware / software; para. 32-34 and Fig. 1D; para. 264-266) as indicated on page 8 of the OA. For further explanation, page 8 of the OA also indicates Jin describes a handover being performed (UE performs handover from serving cell 1 [source] to cell 2 [target] based on layer-2 (L2) signaling; para. 191) and in a review of Jin, para. [135, 166] describes cell 2 is the serving cell after handover. 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 (i.e., “• a report triggered by an L2 cell switch (not by SN-gap detection)”, “• reporting failures specifically tied to the prior/source cell context ("failed ... to the source cell") and explicitly spanning UL as well as DL failures in the inter-DU switch situation. • In another word, Jin does not teach nor suggest the condition to trigger the report”) 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).
B) on page 9 “ii) The combination failed to teach UE self-detected PDCP retransmission" of UL PDCP PDUs that failed to be sent to the source cell.” and “Jin does not disclose UE-side identification of UL PDCP PDUs that were not sent to the source cell due to an inter-DU L2 cell switch (RLC re-establishment/MAC reset), nor retransmission of those PDCP PDUs to the target cell.” .” and “Jin's UL "SDU discard" teaching is contrary to the claimed retransmission.” [emphasis by applicant] The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding B) Claim language indicates “sending a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) status report by a PDCP entity of the UE in an uplink (UL) to the target cell to indicate one or more PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) failed for a downlink (DL) or UL data transfer to the source cell for unacknowledged mode (UM) or acknowledge mode (AM) radio bearer” indicating the optional limitations and thus, not required. Further, the examiner notes MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence X. ARGUING IMPROPER RATIONALES FOR COMBINING REFERENCES D. References Teach Away from the Invention or Render Prior Art Unsatisfactory for Intended Purpose 1. The Nature of the Teaching Is Highly Relevant "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 692, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.") (internal quotations omitted) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
Jin’s disclosure of “retransmission of PDCP SDU” and mere mention of “SDU discard” does not “criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed”.
C) on pages 9-10 “Agiwal [US 2020/0028564 A1] is cited for the "MAC Reset" limitation and does not disclose or teach the UE self-detected logic. In Agiwal, PDCP status reporting and data recovery are controlled by the network via the RRC Reconfiguration/Handover Command. Agiwal does not teach a UE that acts upon an L2 command to self-detect source-failures and report them to a target DU without explicit RRC configuration.” [emphasis by applicant] The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding C) Initially, Agiwal is not cited to teach “UE self-detected logic”. The rejection is a 35 U.S.C. 103 obvious rejection with a combination of Jin and Agiwal. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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). Further, claim limitation “performing a medium access control (MAC) reset by a MAC entity of the UE;” is not tied to any other functionality or when the limitation is to be performed, much less tied to “UE self-detected logic”.
In view of the above, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
D) Remaining arguments on pages 10-11 depend on the above arguments A-C and thus, are correspondingly non-persuasive.
In light of applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully recommends further amendments, supported by the disclosure, that captures intended functionality/timing, for example, including language such as “in response to”, and amending “or” language (which describes optional limitations) so as to clearly capture “explicitly spanning UL as well as DL failures” functionality as argued.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 includes “at least one timer association” which should be “at least one timer associated with” to obviate potential interpretation/indefiniteness issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-10, 12-15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2024/0284280 A1) hereinafter Jin in view of Agiwal et al. (US 2020/0028564 A1) hereinafter Agiwal.
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches a method for a user equipment (UE) (user equipment (UE); para. 246-255 and Fig. 1M), comprising: receiving, by the UE, a cell switch command from a gNB in a wireless network (UE performs handover based on layer-2 signaling; para. 191), wherein the cell switch command indicates a layer-2 (L2) cell switch from a source cell to a target cell (UE performs handover from serving cell 1 [source] to cell 2 [target] based on layer-2 (L2) signaling; para. 191), and wherein the source cell and the target cell belong to two different distributed units (DUs) (embodiments applicable to inter-distributed unit (inter-DU) [two different DUs]; para. [133, 164], omission of steps in the case of intra-DU [single DU, implying inter-DU]; para. [193, 196]); performing a radio link control (RLC) re-establishment by an RLC entity of the UE (performing radio link control (RLC) re-establishment; para. [66, 115], RLC re-establishment performed by new radio (NR) RLC 1d-10; para. 104-115 and Fig. 1D, blocks (RLC 1d-10) performed by hardware / software; para. 32-34 and Fig. 1D; para. 264-266); sending a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) status report by a PDCP entity of the UE in an uplink (UL) to the target cell to indicate one or more PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) failed for a downlink (DL) (packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) 1d-05 of UE transmits status report for missing PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) and requesting retransmission of missing PDCP PDUs [failed downlink (DL)]; para. 103 and Fig. 1D, DL and UL include radio bearer; para. 89, blocks (PDCP 1d-05) performed by hardware / software; para. 32-34 and Fig. 1D; para. 264-266, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or UL data transfer to the source cell for unacknowledged mode (UM) (data transfer in unacknowledged mode (UM); para. 55-65) or acknowledge mode (AM) radio bearer (data transfer in acknowledge mode (AM); para. 55-65); and performing a UE self-detected PDCP retransmission for UL data transfer when the UE detects one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs that failed to be sent to the source cell (UE performs [self-detected] timer-based RLC service data unit (SDU) discard in UL [PDUs from PDCP - see attached Wikipedia entry for service data unit]; para. [93, 102], retransmission of PDCP PDU for data-recovery for RLC AM; para. 55), and wherein the UE self-detected PDCP retransmission retransmits the one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs to the target cell (UE performs timer-based RLC SDU discard in UL; para. [93, 102], retransmission [to target] of PDCP PDU for data-recovery for RLC AM; para. 55) when one or more conditions are met (retransmission of PDCP PDU for data-recovery for RLC AM [timer expired / data not acknowledged]; para. 55).
While Jin discloses medium access control (MAC), Jin does not explicitly disclose performing a medium access control (MAC) reset by a MAC entity of the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Agiwal discloses performing a medium access control (MAC) reset by a MAC entity of the UE (perform a medium access control (MAC) reset during inter-DU; para: 156, MAC sublayer / block, blocks as hardware / software, modules; para. 412-413 and Fig. 2E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Agiwal to the system of Jin, where Jin’s efficient method for moving between cells (para. 08) along with Agiwal’s defining of protocols/functions for inter-CU/DU (para. 17) improves interoperability of equipment from different manufacturers by standardization.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 1.
Jin further discloses wherein the cell switch command is carried by a MAC control element (CE) (L2 signaling for handover on MAC control element (MAC CE); para. [191, 194, 197, 212, 215-216, 224] and Fig. 1J steps [1j-15, 1j-20]], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (L2 signaling for handover on downlink control information (DCI) [DCI on physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); para. [191, 194, 197, 212, 219-220, 224] and Fig. 1J steps [1j-15, 1j-20]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 2.
Jin further discloses sending a cell switch indication by the MAC entity of the UE to the RLC entity and the PDCP entity, respectively (RRC layer exists as upper layer PDCP layer; para. 79, UE receives RRC reconfiguration for handover, RRC signal travels from NR MAC 1d-15 to NR RLC 1d-10 and NR PDCP 1d-05; para. 211-212 and Fig. 1D).
Jin does not explicitly disclose wherein the RLC re-establishment, the PDCP status report, and the UE self-detected PDCP retransmission are triggered by the cell switch indication from the MAC entity of the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Agiwal further discloses wherein the RLC re-establishment (RLC is re-established during [triggered] handover procedure [RRC request from MAC]; para. 156), the PDCP status report (PDCP status report triggered after RLC is re-established [RRC request from MAC]; para. 36), and the UE self-detected PDCP retransmission are triggered by the cell switch indication from the MAC entity of the UE (UE retransmits PDCP SDUs not acknowledged [self-detected] for inter-DU handover [triggered by RRC request from MAC]; para. [164, 171]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Agiwal to the modified system of Jin and Agiwal, where Jin and Agiwal’s modified system along with Agiwal’s defining of protocols/functions for inter-CU/DU (para. 17) improves interoperability of equipment from different manufacturers by standardization.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 1.
Jin further discloses wherein the UE self-detected PDCP retransmission involves identifying the one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs by lower layers of the UE (UE performs timer-based RLC [lower layer] SDU discard in UL; para. [93, 102], retransmission of PDCP PDU for data-recovery for RLC [lower layer] AM; para. 55).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 9.
Jin further discloses wherein the RLC entity identifies the one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs (UE performs timer-based RLC SDU discard in UL; para. [93, 102], retransmission of PDCP PDU for data-recovery [identifies failed PDU(s)] for RLC AM; para. 55) and sends a PDCP PDU failure indication to the PDCP entity (retransmission of PDCP PDU for data-recovery [indication to PDCP to retransmit PDU(s)]; para. 55).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 1.
Jin further discloses wherein the one or more conditions comprising at least one of: a data volume of the one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs is equal to or greater than a preconfigured threshold, receiving an RRC signalling (UE receives RRC reconfiguration for handover; para. 211-212 and Fig. 1D, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), and receiving an indication in the cell switch command (L2 signaling for handover on MAC control element (MAC CE); para. [191, 194, 197, 212, 215-216, 224] and Fig. 1J steps [1j-15, 1j-20]], L2 signaling for handover on downlink control information (DCI) [DCI on physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); para. [191, 194, 197, 212, 219-220, 224] and Fig. 1J steps [1j-15, 1j-20]).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 1.
Jin does not explicitly disclose wherein the cell switch command further includes an indication to enable or disable the UE self-detected PDCP retransmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Agiwal further discloses wherein the cell switch command (RRC reconfiguration message including signaling for a switch command for DU switching; para. 66) further includes an indication (RRC reconfiguration message including indication in signaling for a switch command; para. 185) to enable (based on indication, UE maintains parameter values for AM [perform acknowledge mode]; para. 185) or disable (based on indication, UE resets parameter values for UM [perform unacknowledged mode]; para. 185) the UE self-detected PDCP retransmission (AM for enabling self-detected PDCP retransmission, UM for disable self-detected PDCP retransmission; para. 184-186).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Agiwal to the modified system of Jin and Agiwal, where Jin and Agiwal’s modified system along with Agiwal’s defining of protocols/functions for inter-CU/DU (para. 17) improves interoperability of equipment from different manufacturers by standardization.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including user equipment (UE) (user equipment (UE); para. 246-255 and Fig. 1M: Jin); radio frequency (RF) transceiver (radio frequency (RF) processor for transmitting and receiving; para. 247-248: Jin); memory (memory; para. 253); processor coupled to the memory (processor; 256, performed by hardware / software; para. 32-34 and Fig. 1D; para. 264-266: Jin); protocol stack (protocol stack; para. 47-48 and Fig. 1B: Jin); radio link control (RLC) entity (blocks (radio link control (RLC) 1d-10) performed by hardware / software; para. 32-34 and Fig. 1D; para. 264-266: Jin); medium access control (MAC) entity (blocks [medium access control (MAC) 1d-15] performed by hardware / software; para. 32-34 and Fig. 1D; para. 264-266: Jin); packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity (blocks [packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) 1d-05] performed by hardware / software; para. 32-34 and Fig. 1D: Jin).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Agiwal, and further in view of Sang et al. (US 2018/0279182 A1) hereinafter Sang.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 2.
Jin further discloses sending a cell switch indication by the MAC entity of the UE to a radio resource control (RRC) entity of the UE upon receiving the cell switch command (RRC layer exists as upper layer PDCP layer; para. 79, UE receives RRC reconfiguration for handover, RRC signal travels from NR MAC 1d-15 to PDCP [RRC at upper layer of PDCP 1d-05]; para. 211-212 and Fig. 1D).
The combination of Jin and Agiwal does not explicitly disclose sending an RRC request by the RRC entity to the PDCP entity and the RLC entity upon receiving the cell switch indication.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sang discloses sending an RRC request by the RRC entity (L2 message / handover command obtained from RRC message; para. [88, 106], functions performed in hardware / software; para. [74, 78, 111-112]) to the PDCP entity and the RLC entity upon receiving the cell switch indication (L2 message / handover command triggers [upon receiving] RLC reset [RRC request traverses PDCP to RLC] and MAC reset [RRC request traverses PDCP-RLC to MAC]; para. 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Sang to the modified system of Jin and Agiwal, where Jin and Agiwal’s modified system along with Sang’s reduced overhead (para. [02, 82-83]) improves user satisfaction by efficient signaling to reduce latency.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jin, Agiwal, and Sang discloses the limitation of previous claim 3.
Jin does not explicitly disclose wherein the RLC re-establishment, the PDCP status report, and the UE self-detected PDCP retransmission are triggered by the RRC request from the RRC entity of the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Agiwal further discloses wherein the RLC re-establishment (RLC is re-established during [triggered] handover procedure [RRC request]; para. 156), the PDCP status report (PDCP status report triggered after RLC is re-established [RRC request]; para. 36), and the UE self-detected PDCP retransmission are triggered by the RRC request from the RRC entity of the UE (UE retransmits PDCP SDUs not acknowledged [self-detected] for inter-DU handover [triggered by RRC request]; para. [164, 171]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Agiwal to the modified system of Jin, Agiwal, and Sang, where Jin, Agiwal, and Sang’s modified system along with Agiwal’s defining of protocols/functions for inter-CU/DU (para. 17) improves interoperability of equipment from different manufacturers by standardization.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jin, Agiwal, and Sang discloses the limitation of previous claim 3.
The combination of Jin and Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the RRC request is sent to the MAC entity, and wherein the MAC reset is triggered by the RRC request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sang further discloses wherein the RRC request (L2 message / handover command obtained from RRC message; para. [88, 106]) is sent to the MAC entity, and wherein the MAC reset is triggered by the RRC request (L2 message / handover command [RRC request] triggers MAC reset [sent to MAC entity]; para. 83, functions performed in hardware / software; para. [74, 78, 111-112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Sang to the modified system of Jin, Agiwal, and Sang, where Jin, Agiwal, and Sang’s modified system along with Sang’s reduced overhead (para. [02, 82-83]) improves user satisfaction by efficient signaling to reduce latency.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Agiwal, and further in view of Kung et al. (US 2023/0362853 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 63/338,705 filed 5/5/2022) hereinafter Kung.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Jin and Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein performing the MAC reset further comprising: controlling a source timing advance group (TAG) associated with the source cell; and keeping a timeAlignment timer associated with the source cell running.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kung teaches wherein performing the MAC reset (in an L2 mobility inter-DU handover scenario resetting MAC; [53, 61, 390]) further comprising: controlling a source timing advance group (TAG) associated with the source cell; and keeping a timeAlignment timer associated with the source cell running (not stop time alignment timer associated with timing advance group (TAG) associated with first [source] cell; para. 471).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kung to the modified system of Jin and Agiwal, where Jin and Agiwal’s modified system along with Kung’s L1/L2 mobility enhancements (para. 51) improves user satisfaction by enabling low latency and low interruption time.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Agiwal, and further in view of Kung, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0168664 A1) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jin, Agiwal and Kung discloses the limitation of previous claim 7.
The combination of Jin, Agiwal and Kung does not explicitly disclose wherein performing the MAC reset further comprising: keeping a beamFailureDetection timer associated with the source cell running.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein performing the MAC reset (in a MAC reset; para. 387) further comprising: keeping a beamFailureDetection timer associated with the source cell running (keep BeamFailureDetectionTimer associated with PSCell [source] running; para. 387-392).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kung to the modified system of Jin, Agiwal and Kung, where Jin, Agiwal and Kung’s modified system along with Kim’s low latency (para. [05, 43, 45, 47-49, 51, 53]) improves user satisfaction by enabling low latency services.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Agiwal, and further in view of Kanamarlapudi et al. (US 2023/0079972 A1) hereinafter Kanamarlapudi.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jin and Agiwal discloses the limitation of previous claim 9.
The combination of Jin and Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the RLC entity identifies the one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs and sends the one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs to the PDCP entity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kanamarlapudi discloses wherein the RLC entity identifies the one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs (when RLC entity provided with PDU(s) and PDU(s) not transmitted by RLC [source-failed]; para. 94) and sends the one or more source-failed UL PDCP PDUs to the PDCP entity (when RLC entity provided with PDU(s) and PDU(s) not transmitted by RLC, RLC returns PDU(s) to PDCP; para. 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kanamarlapudi to the modified system of Jin and Agiwal, where Jin and Agiwal’s modified system along with Kanamarlapudi’s improvements in LTE/NR (para. 04) improves user satisfaction by enabling improving services.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong (US 2025/0071639 A1) discloses a method for controlling cell change operation, and device thereof.
Dong et al. (US 2025/0048197 A1) discloses a method and system for performing fast mobility based on lower layer signaling.
Lou et al. (US 2024/0422641 A1) discloses a communication method and apparatus.
US Provisional Application No. 63/338,705 [Kung] is included in the OA of 10/29/2026 and thus, is not included in the instant OA.
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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474