DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 10/24/2025 for response of the office action mailed on 06/24/2025. Interdependent claims 1 and 6-7 are amended. No claims are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-8 are pending and addressed below.
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 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.
In 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 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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammour et al. (2009/0103478 as submitted in IDS), Sammour hereinafter, in view of in view of Uchino et al. (2016/0338132 as submitted in IDS), Uchino hereinafter.
Re. Claim 1, Sammour teaches a transmitting device (Fig.1, WTRU/Fig. 8, 710) comprising: a buffer configured to store the transmission data (¶0062 - storing the packet in a buffer. Also, see ¶0151/¶0153); first layer processor circuitry (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151 - The processor 815 is configured to perform PDCP discard and enhanced Layer 2 operations. Layer 2 consists of PDCP, RLC & MAC layer, well known in the analogous art. Also, see ¶0154) configured to execute processing (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151-¶0155) for a first layer (Fig. 1, PDCP layer in WTRU) on the transmission data (Fig.1/Fig.8 & ¶0151 - transmitter 816 to facilitate the transmission and reception of wireless data); second layer processor circuitry (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151 - The processor 815 is configured to perform PDCP discard and enhanced Layer 2 operations. Layer 2 consists of PDCP, RLC & MAC layer, well known in the analogous art. Also, see ¶0154) configured to execute processing (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151-¶0155) for a second layer (Fig. 1, RLC/MAC layer in WTRU) on the transmission data (Fig.1/Fig.8 & ¶0151 - transmitter 816 to facilitate the transmission and reception of wireless data), the second layer being lower layer of the first layer (RLC/MAC layer is lower than PDCP layer, see Fig. 1); and a transmitter configured to transmit the transmission (Fig.1/Fig.8 & ¶0151 - transmitter 816 to facilitate the transmission and reception of wireless data) processed by the first layer processor circuitry and the second layer processor circuitry (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151-¶0155); and a receiver (Fig.8, 817) configured to receive first information and second information (Fig. 1-11 - PDCP discard timer <DTP1/DRP2, new discard timer, see ¶0066 along with Fig. 9>, refers to first information, RLC discard timer <DTR>, refers to second information, see ¶0077, ¶0080-¶0085 along with Fig. 9), the first information being information for setting a first time for discarding the transmission data used by the first layer (Fig. 9-10 & ¶0068 - Option 1: In the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer (DTP1) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer> is started upon reception of a PDCP SDU from upper layers. When the discard timer (DTP1) expires, the transmitting PDCP entity discards the associated SDU/PDU. Fig. 9-10 & ¶0071 - Option 2: In the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer (DTP2) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer> is started upon sending a PDCP SDU/PDU to lower layers for transmission (i.e. to RLC). When the discard timer (DTP2) expires, the transmitting PDCP entity discards the associated SDU/PDU. Fig. 9-10 & ¶0082 - At 910, in the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer, (e.g., DTP1) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer>, is started upon reception of an PDCP SDU from upper layers, whereby DTP1 is initialized with value Z time units (assuming a decrementing timer implementation for DTP1). At 920, after X time units (where X is the amount of time the SDU/PDU has spent in the PDCP entity before being submitted to the RLC), the transmitting PDCP entity submits/sends the PDCP SDU/PDU to lower layers, (i.e., to RLC), for transmission. The transmitting PDCP entity may provide along with the submitted PDCP PDU, (i.e., the RLC SDU), an indication of the remaining overall timer value, (i.e., Z-X e.g. in the case of a decrementing timer implementation), or of the time spent in the PDCP entity, (i.e., X e.g. in the case of an incrementing timer implementation). Such an indication may be signaled via new parameters for primitives, such as a new parameter for the RLC primitive RLC-yy-Data-Req (which is used by upper layers e.g. PDCP, to request the transmission of an RLC SDU). Fig. 9 & ¶0084 - At 930, when the discard timer, (DTP1 or DTR), expires, the transmitting entity, (PDCP or RLC), discards the associated SDU/PDU, (or SDUs/PDUs in case more than one SDU are associated with the same timer) at 940. Also, see 1010/1020 in Fig. 10), the second information being information associated with the second layer and used to configure a second time for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer, (Fig. 9 & ¶0077 - The transmitting RLC entity may have its own timer-based discard operation. If so, it is possible that the LTE RLC will start its own discard timer upon receiving the RLC SDU, (i.e., the PDCP PDU), from the upper layer, (i.e., from PDCP). The RLC discard timer is referred to as DTR (i.e., second information/RLC discard timer). When the DTR (RLC discard timer) expires, the transmitting RLC entity discards the associated SDU/PDU (or SDUs/PDUs, in case more than one SDU/PDU is associated with the same timer). Fig. 9 & ¶0084 - At 930, when the discard timer, (DTP1 or DTR), expires, the transmitting entity, (PDCP or RLC), discards the associated SDU/PDU, (or SDUs/PDUs in case more than one SDU are associated with the same timer) at 940. Also, see 1040 in Fig. 10. Overall, the aforesaid disclosures by Sammour can be summarized by the snapshots of figures 4 and 10, as reproduced next),
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1007
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yet, Sammour does not expressly teach the first layer processor circuitry is configured to discard the transmission data stored in the buffer, upon expiration of a time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information.
However, in the analogous art, Uchino explicitly discloses the first layer processor circuitry (Fig.4/Fig. 6, 110) is configured to discard the transmission data stored in the buffer, upon expiration of a time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information (Fig. 1-6 & ¶0039 - In order to manage the staying time of packets in the RLC buffer 121, the RLC entity control unit 123 has a RLC discard timer (RLC Discard Timer) to count the staying time of respective packets in packet sequences stored in the RLC buffer 121. In order to avoid the transmission latency and the overflow as stated above, the RLC entity control unit 123 discards a staying packet, for which the RLC discard timer has expired, from the RLC buffer 121, indicates the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet to the RLC buffer 121 as a packet destined for a different base station, and transmits the staying packet retransmitted from the PDCP layer processing unit 110 from a RLC entity 122 corresponding to the different base station…. when the RLC discard timer has expired for a packet in the RLC buffer 121 destined for the secondary base station 200B, the RLC entity control unit 123 indicates the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to discard the packet from the RLC buffer 121 and retransmit the staying packet as a packet destined for the master base station 200A to transmit from the master base station 200A. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0041 - RLC entity control unit 123 may set an expiration time for the RLC discard timer depending on a bearer type or a logical channel type of packets. For example, the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be set to a relatively short time for a bearer type or a logical channel where long transmission latency is unacceptable. ….. the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be set to a relatively long time for a bearer type or a logical channel where a certain amount of latency is acceptable..….the RLC entity control unit 123 may set the expiration time for the RLC discard timer with a time indicated from the multiple base stations 200 in RRC. For example, the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be indicated in a RRC message from the master base station 200A. Here, the RLC entity control unit 123 may stop the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired. In other words, the packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired is discarded in the PDCP layer processing unit 110. As a result, even if the RLC entity control unit 123 continues counting the RLC discard timer, the RLC entity control unit 123 cannot cause the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet and accordingly may stop the RLC discard timer so as to avoid unnecessarily counting the RLC discard timer. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0051 - At step S106, the RLC layer processing unit 120 discards the staying packet from the RLC buffer 121…..the RLC layer processing unit 120 determines the PDCP PDUs for which the RLC discard timer has expired as the staying packets and discards the PDCP PDUs from the RLC buffer 121. Also, see claims 4 & 12, for example, in claim 4, it recites, “wherein the PDCP layer processing unit has a PDCP discard timer configured to discard packets stored in the PDCP layer processing unit, and the RLC entity control unit stops the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired.” In Summary, there is a strong correspondence between discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) in order to alleviate overflow at the RLC layer correlating to data packets at PDCP layer (first layer) failing to be transmitted to the base station, in turns, improves overall transmission latency for uplink data, once discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) are coordinated as disclosed supra. In fact, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino, are similar to instant application, at least in ¶0075, where it recites, “first information defining discard conditions for a packet for the first layer is set in accordance with second information regarding transmission control for the second layer, and a packet satisfying the discard conditions is discarded from the buffer for the first layer. Therefore, it is possible to shorten a buffering time within which a packet is held in the buffer, and, even when low latency data is generated as new transmission data, it is possible to reduce latency until the low latency data is to be transmitted. As a result, it is possible to satisfy latency requirements for the low latency data.”, also, at least in ¶0067, where it recites, “first information defining conditions for discarding the packet.…the first layer processing unit 112 uses parameters for a different layer (e.g., a lower layer), that is, a second layer, and sets discard conditions for the packet.” Overall, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino can be summarized by the snapshots of fig. 4 and fig. 6, as reproduced next).
PNG
media_image3.png
414
1155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Sammour’s invention of a system and a method for discarding a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data unit (SDU) to include Uchino’s invention of user equipment (UE) having a dual connectivity function to communicate with multiple base stations simultaneously, because it provides an efficient mechanism for transmitting uplink data in the dual connectivity efficiently. (¶0002-¶0012, Uchino)
Re. Claim 2, Sammour and Uchino teach claim 1.
Sammour further teaches wherein the receiver is further configured to receive the first information and the second information via a Radio ResourceControl (RRC) signaling. (See ¶0080-¶0081).
Re. Claim 3, Sammour and Uchino teach claim 1.
Sammour further teaches wherein the first layer is a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer (Fig. 1, PDCP layer in WTRU), and the second layer is a medium access control (MAC) layer (Fig. 1, MAC layer in WTRU, as per instant application, any layer other than PDCP layer, see ¶0067).
Re. Claim 4, Sammour and Uchino teach claim 1.
Yet, Sammour does not expressly teach wherein the second time is lower than the first time.
However, in the analogous art, Uchino explicitly discloses wherein the second time is lower than the first time. (Fig. 1-6 & ¶0035 - the PDCP layer processing unit 110 may have a PDCP discard timer (PDCP Discard Timer) to discard packets stored in the PDCP layer processing unit 110. The PDCP layer processing unit 110 stores already transmitted PDCP PDUs in a buffer for subsequent retransmission for a predefined time after transmitting the PDCP PDUs to the RLC layer processing unit 120. When the PDCP discard timer configured for the respective PDCP PDUs has expired due to passage of the predefined time, the PDCP layer processing unit 110 may discard the PDCP PDUs. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0041 - the RLC entity control unit 123 may set an expiration time for the RLC discard timer depending on a bearer type or a logical channel type of packets. For example, the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be set to a relatively short time for a bearer type or a logical channel where long transmission latency is unacceptable. On the other hand, the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be set to a relatively long time for a bearer type or a logical channel where a certain amount of latency is acceptable. …..the RLC entity control unit 123 may stop the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired. In other words, the packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired is discarded in the PDCP layer processing unit 110. As a result, even if the RLC entity control unit 123 continues counting the RLC discard timer, the RLC entity control unit 123 cannot cause the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet and accordingly may stop the RLC discard timer so as to avoid unnecessarily counting the RLC discard timer)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Sammour’s invention of a system and a method for discarding a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data unit (SDU) to include Uchino’s invention of user equipment (UE) having a dual connectivity function to communicate with multiple base stations simultaneously, because it provides an efficient mechanism for transmitting uplink data in the dual connectivity efficiently. (¶0002-¶0012, Uchino)
Re. Claim 5, Sammour and Uchino teach claim 1.
Sammour further teaches wherein the transmitting device (Fig.1, WTRU/Fig. 8, 710 & ¶0151 - transmitter 816 to facilitate the transmission and reception of wireless data) is a mobile terminal. (See Fig. 1/Fig.7-8, WTRU, 710)
Re. Claim 6, Sammour teaches a base station device (Fig.1, eNB/Fig.8, eNB 720) that controls a terminal device (Fig. 1/Fig.7-8, WTRU, 710), the base station device (Fig.1, eNB/Fig.8, eNB 720) comprising: a memory (see ¶0152/¶0153); and processor circuitry (Fig. 8, 825) coupled to the memory and configured to: transmit first information and second information (Fig. 1-11 - PDCP discard timer <DTP1/DRP2, new discard timer, see ¶0066 along with Fig. 9>, refers to first information, RLC discard timer <DTR>, refers to second information, see ¶0077, ¶0080-¶0085 along with Fig. 9), the first information being information for setting a first time for discarding transmission data used by a first layer (Fig. 9-10 & ¶0068 - Option 1: In the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer (DTP1) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer> is started upon reception of a PDCP SDU from upper layers. When the discard timer (DTP1) expires, the transmitting PDCP entity discards the associated SDU/PDU. Fig. 9-10 & ¶0071 - Option 2: In the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer (DTP2) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer> is started upon sending a PDCP SDU/PDU to lower layers for transmission (i.e., to RLC). When the discard timer (DTP2) expires, the transmitting PDCP entity discards the associated SDU/PDU. Fig. 9-10 & ¶0082 - At 910, in the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer, (e.g., DTP1) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer>, is started upon reception of an PDCP SDU from upper layers, whereby DTP1 is initialized with value Z time units (assuming a decrementing timer implementation for DTP1). At 920, after X time units (where X is the amount of time the SDU/PDU has spent in the PDCP entity before being submitted to the RLC), the transmitting PDCP entity submits/sends the PDCP SDU/PDU to lower layers, (i.e., to RLC), for transmission. The transmitting PDCP entity may provide along with the submitted PDCP PDU, (i.e., the RLC SDU), an indication of the remaining overall timer value, (i.e., Z-X e.g., in the case of a decrementing timer implementation), or of the time spent in the PDCP entity, (i.e., X e.g., in the case of an incrementing timer implementation). Such an indication may be signaled via new parameters for primitives, such as a new parameter for the RLC primitive RLC-yy-Data-Req (which is used by upper layers e.g., PDCP, to request the transmission of an RLC SDU). Fig. 9 & ¶0084 - At 930, when the discard timer, (DTP1 or DTR), expires, the transmitting entity, (PDCP or RLC), discards the associated SDU/PDU, (or SDUs/PDUs in case more than one SDU are associated with the same timer) at 940. Also, see 1010/1020 in Fig. 10), the second information being information associated with a second layer which is lower layer of the first layer and used to configure a second time for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer (Fig. 9 & ¶0077 - The transmitting RLC entity may have its own timer-based discard operation. If so, it is possible that the LTE RLC will start its own discard timer upon receiving the RLC SDU, (i.e., the PDCP PDU), from the upper layer, (i.e., from PDCP). The RLC discard timer is referred to as DTR (i.e., second information/RLC discard timer). When the DTR (RLC discard timer) expires, the transmitting RLC entity discards the associated SDU/PDU (or SDUs/PDUs, in case more than one SDU/PDU is associated with the same timer). Fig. 9 & ¶0084 - At 930, when the discard timer, (DTP1 or DTR), expires, the transmitting entity, (PDCP or RLC), discards the associated SDU/PDU, (or SDUs/PDUs in case more than one SDU are associated with the same timer) at 940. . Also, see 1040 in Fig. 10. Overall, the aforesaid disclosures by Sammour can be summarized by the snapshots of figures 4 and 10, as reproduced next),
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1007
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yet, Sammour does not expressly teach wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal device to discard the transmission data stored in a buffer relating with the first layer of the terminal device, upon expiration of a time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information.
However, in the analogous art, Uchino explicitly discloses wherein the processor circuitry (Fig.4/Fig. 6, 110) is further configured to cause the terminal device to discard the transmission data stored in a buffer relating with the first layer of the terminal device, upon expiration of a time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information. (Fig. 1-6 & ¶0039 - In order to manage the staying time of packets in the RLC buffer 121, the RLC entity control unit 123 has a RLC discard timer (RLC Discard Timer) to count the staying time of respective packets in packet sequences stored in the RLC buffer 121. In order to avoid the transmission latency and the overflow as stated above, the RLC entity control unit 123 discards a staying packet, for which the RLC discard timer has expired, from the RLC buffer 121, indicates the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet to the RLC buffer 121 as a packet destined for a different base station, and transmits the staying packet retransmitted from the PDCP layer processing unit 110 from a RLC entity 122 corresponding to the different base station…. when the RLC discard timer has expired for a packet in the RLC buffer 121 destined for the secondary base station 200B, the RLC entity control unit 123 indicates the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to discard the packet from the RLC buffer 121 and retransmit the staying packet as a packet destined for the master base station 200A to transmit from the master base station 200A. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0041 - RLC entity control unit 123 may set an expiration time for the RLC discard timer depending on a bearer type or a logical channel type of packets. For example, the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be set to a relatively short time for a bearer type or a logical channel where long transmission latency is unacceptable. ….. the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be set to a relatively long time for a bearer type or a logical channel where a certain amount of latency is acceptable..….the RLC entity control unit 123 may set the expiration time for the RLC discard timer with a time indicated from the multiple base stations 200 in RRC. For example, the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be indicated in a RRC message from the master base station 200A. Here, the RLC entity control unit 123 may stop the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired. In other words, the packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired is discarded in the PDCP layer processing unit 110. As a result, even if the RLC entity control unit 123 continues counting the RLC discard timer, the RLC entity control unit 123 cannot cause the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet and accordingly may stop the RLC discard timer so as to avoid unnecessarily counting the RLC discard timer. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0051 - At step S106, the RLC layer processing unit 120 discards the staying packet from the RLC buffer 121…..the RLC layer processing unit 120 determines the PDCP PDUs for which the RLC discard timer has expired as the staying packets and discards the PDCP PDUs from the RLC buffer 121. Also, see claims 4 & 12, for example, in claim 4, it recites, “wherein the PDCP layer processing unit has a PDCP discard timer configured to discard packets stored in the PDCP layer processing unit, and the RLC entity control unit stops the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired.” In Summary, there is a strong correspondence between discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) in order to alleviate overflow at the RLC layer correlating to data packets at PDCP layer (first layer) failing to be transmitted to the base station, in turns, improves overall transmission latency for uplink data, once discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) are coordinated as disclosed supra. In fact, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino, are similar to instant application, at least in ¶0075, where it recites, “first information defining discard conditions for a packet for the first layer is set in accordance with second information regarding transmission control for the second layer, and a packet satisfying the discard conditions is discarded from the buffer for the first layer. Therefore, it is possible to shorten a buffering time within which a packet is held in the buffer, and, even when low latency data is generated as new transmission data, it is possible to reduce latency until the low latency data is to be transmitted. As a result, it is possible to satisfy latency requirements for the low latency data.”, also, at least in ¶0067, where it recites, “first information defining conditions for discarding the packet.…the first layer processing unit 112 uses parameters for a different layer (e.g., a lower layer), that is, a second layer, and sets discard conditions for the packet.” Overall, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino can be summarized by the snapshots of fig. 4 and fig. 6, as reproduced next).
PNG
media_image3.png
414
1155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Sammour’s invention of a system and a method for discarding a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data unit (SDU) to include Uchino’s invention of user equipment (UE) having a dual connectivity function to communicate with multiple base stations simultaneously, because it provides an efficient mechanism for transmitting uplink data in the dual connectivity efficiently. (¶0002-¶0012, Uchino)
Re. Claim 7, Sammour teaches a wireless communication system (Fig. 7-8) comprising: a terminal (Fig.1, WTRU/Fig. 8, 710); and a base station (Fig.1, eNB/Fig.8, eNB 720) configured to transmit first information and second information (Fig. 1-11 - PDCP discard timer <DTP1/DRP2, new discard timer, see ¶0066 along with Fig. 9>, refers to first information, RLC discard timer <DTR>, refers to second information, see ¶0077, ¶0080-¶0085 along with Fig. 9), the first information being information for setting a first time for discarding the transmission data used by a first layer (Fig. 9-10 & ¶0068 - Option 1: In the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer (DTP1) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer> is started upon reception of a PDCP SDU from upper layers. When the discard timer (DTP1) expires, the transmitting PDCP entity discards the associated SDU/PDU. Fig. 9-10 & ¶0071 - Option 2: In the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer (DTP2) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer> is started upon sending a PDCP SDU/PDU to lower layers for transmission (i.e., to RLC). When the discard timer (DTP2) expires, the transmitting PDCP entity discards the associated SDU/PDU. Fig. 9-10 & ¶0082 - At 910, in the transmitting PDCP entity, a new discard timer, (e.g., DTP1) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer>, is started upon reception of an PDCP SDU from upper layers, whereby DTP1 is initialized with value Z time units (assuming a decrementing timer implementation for DTP1). At 920, after X time units (where X is the amount of time the SDU/PDU has spent in the PDCP entity before being submitted to the RLC), the transmitting PDCP entity submits/sends the PDCP SDU/PDU to lower layers, (i.e., to RLC), for transmission. The transmitting PDCP entity may provide along with the submitted PDCP PDU, (i.e., the RLC SDU), an indication of the remaining overall timer value, (i.e., Z-X e.g., in the case of a decrementing timer implementation), or of the time spent in the PDCP entity, (i.e., X e.g. in the case of an incrementing timer implementation). Such an indication may be signaled via new parameters for primitives, such as a new parameter for the RLC primitive RLC-yy-Data-Req (which is used by upper layers e.g., PDCP, to request the transmission of an RLC SDU). Fig. 9 & ¶0084 - At 930, when the discard timer, (DTP1 or DTR), expires, the transmitting entity, (PDCP or RLC), discards the associated SDU/PDU, (or SDUs/PDUs in case more than one SDU are associated with the same timer) at 940. Also, see 1010/1020 in Fig. 10), the second information being information associated with a second layer and used to configure a second time for discarding the transmission data by the second layer (Fig. 9 & ¶0077 - The transmitting RLC entity may have its own timer-based discard operation. If so, it is possible that the LTE RLC will start its own discard timer upon receiving the RLC SDU, (i.e., the PDCP PDU), from the upper layer, (i.e., from PDCP). The RLC discard timer is referred to as DTR (i.e., second information/RLC discard timer). When the DTR (RLC discard timer) expires, the transmitting RLC entity discards the associated SDU/PDU (or SDUs/PDUs, in case more than one SDU/PDU is associated with the same timer). Fig. 9 & ¶0084 - At 930, when the discard timer, (DTP1 or DTR), expires, the transmitting entity, (PDCP or RLC), discards the associated SDU/PDU, (or SDUs/PDUs in case more than one SDU are associated with the same timer) at 940. Also, see 1040 in Fig. 10. Overall, the aforesaid disclosures by Sammour can be summarized by the snapshots of figures 4 and 10, as reproduced next), wherein the terminal (Fig.1, WTRU/Fig. 8, 710) includes: a buffer configured to store the transmission data (¶0062 - storing the packet in a buffer. Also, see ¶0151/¶0153); first layer processor circuitry (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151 - The processor 815 is configured to perform PDCP discard and enhanced Layer 2 operations. Layer 2 consists of PDCP, RLC & MAC layer, well known in the analogous art. Also, see ¶0154) configured to execute processing (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151-¶0155) for the first layer (Fig. 1, PDCP layer in WTRU) on the transmission data (Fig.1/Fig.8 & ¶0151 - transmitter 816 to facilitate the transmission and reception of wireless data), second layer processor circuitry (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151 - The processor 815 is configured to perform PDCP discard and enhanced Layer 2 operations. Layer 2 consists of PDCP, RLC & MAC layer, well known in the analogous art. Also, see ¶0154) configured to execute processing (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151-¶0155) for the second layer (Fig. 1, RLC/MAC layer in WTRU) on the transmission data (Fig.1/Fig.8 & ¶0151 - transmitter 816 to facilitate the transmission and reception of wireless data), and a transmitter configured to transmit the transmission data (Fig.1/Fig.8 & ¶0151 - transmitter 816 to facilitate the transmission and reception of wireless data) processed by the first layer processor circuitry and the second layer processor circuitry (Fig.1/Fig. 8 & ¶0151-¶0155); and a receiver (Fig.8, 817) configured to receive the first information and the second information (Fig. 1-11 - PDCP discard timer <DTP1, new discard timer>, refers to first information, RLC discard timer <DTR>, refers to second information, see ¶0077, ¶0080-¶0085 along with Fig. 9),
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1007
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yet, Sammour does not expressly teach wherein the first layer processor circuitry is configured to discard the transmission data stored in the buffer, upon expiration of time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information.
However, in the analogous art, Uchino explicitly discloses wherein the first layer processor circuitry (Fig.4/Fig. 6, 110) is configured to discard the transmission data stored in the buffer, upon expiration of time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information. (Fig. 1-6 & ¶0039 - In order to manage the staying time of packets in the RLC buffer 121, the RLC entity control unit 123 has a RLC discard timer (RLC Discard Timer) to count the staying time of respective packets in packet sequences stored in the RLC buffer 121. In order to avoid the transmission latency and the overflow as stated above, the RLC entity control unit 123 discards a staying packet, for which the RLC discard timer has expired, from the RLC buffer 121, indicates the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet to the RLC buffer 121 as a packet destined for a different base station, and transmits the staying packet retransmitted from the PDCP layer processing unit 110 from a RLC entity 122 corresponding to the different base station…. when the RLC discard timer has expired for a packet in the RLC buffer 121 destined for the secondary base station 200B, the RLC entity control unit 123 indicates the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to discard the packet from the RLC buffer 121 and retransmit the staying packet as a packet destined for the master base station 200A to transmit from the master base station 200A. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0041 - RLC entity control unit 123 may set an expiration time for the RLC discard timer depending on a bearer type or a logical channel type of packets. For example, the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be set to a relatively short time for a bearer type or a logical channel where long transmission latency is unacceptable. ….. the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be set to a relatively long time for a bearer type or a logical channel where a certain amount of latency is acceptable..….the RLC entity control unit 123 may set the expiration time for the RLC discard timer with a time indicated from the multiple base stations 200 in RRC. For example, the expiration time of the RLC discard timer may be indicated in a RRC message from the master base station 200A. Here, the RLC entity control unit 123 may stop the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired. In other words, the packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired is discarded in the PDCP layer processing unit 110. As a result, even if the RLC entity control unit 123 continues counting the RLC discard timer, the RLC entity control unit 123 cannot cause the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet and accordingly may stop the RLC discard timer so as to avoid unnecessarily counting the RLC discard timer. Fig. 1-6 & ¶0051 - At step S106, the RLC layer processing unit 120 discards the staying packet from the RLC buffer 121…..the RLC layer processing unit 120 determines the PDCP PDUs for which the RLC discard timer has expired as the staying packets and discards the PDCP PDUs from the RLC buffer 121. Also, see claims 4 & 12, for example, in claim 4, it recites, “wherein the PDCP layer processing unit has a PDCP discard timer configured to discard packets stored in the PDCP layer processing unit, and the RLC entity control unit stops the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired.” In Summary, there is a strong correspondence between discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) in order to alleviate overflow at the RLC layer correlating to data packets at PDCP layer (first layer) failing to be transmitted to the base station, in turns, improves overall transmission latency for uplink data, once discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) are coordinated as disclosed supra. In fact, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino, are similar to instant application, at least in ¶0075, where it recites, “first information defining discard conditions for a packet for the first layer is set in accordance with second information regarding transmission control for the second layer, and a packet satisfying the discard conditions is discarded from the buffer for the first layer. Therefore, it is possible to shorten a buffering time within which a packet is held in the buffer, and, even when low latency data is generated as new transmission data, it is possible to reduce latency until the low latency data is to be transmitted. As a result, it is possible to satisfy latency requirements for the low latency data.”, also, at least in ¶0067, where it recites, “first information defining conditions for discarding the packet.…the first layer processing unit 112 uses parameters for a different layer (e.g., a lower layer), that is, a second layer, and sets discard conditions for the packet.” Overall, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino can be summarized by the snapshots of fig. 4 and fig. 6, as reproduced next
PNG
media_image3.png
414
1155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Sammour’s invention of a system and a method for discarding a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data unit (SDU) to include Uchino’s invention of user equipment (UE) having a dual connectivity function to communicate with multiple base stations simultaneously, because it provides an efficient mechanism for transmitting uplink data in the dual connectivity efficiently. (¶0002-¶0012, Uchino)
Re. Claim 8, Sammour and Uchino teach claim 1.
Sammour further teaches wherein the transmission data discarded by the first layer processor circuitry is data before the processing for the second layer by the second layer processor circuitry. (Fig. 9-10 & ¶0091: ¶0094 - At 1010, the transmitting PDCP entity determines whether to discard a packet (PDCP SDU/PDU) based on a trigger event ; At 1020, the transmitting PDCP entity discards the packet; At 1030, the transmitting PDCP entity notifies the lower layer, (i.e., the transmitting RLC entity of the discard decision and of the discarded packet), via a signal, (e.g., a primitive and its parameters); and At 1040, upon receiving the signal, (e.g., a primitive and its parameters), the transmitting RLC entity discards the identified packet, (i.e., the RLC SDU and/or its associated RLC PDUs). It is evident from the aforesaid disclosures by Sammour, the transmission data/packet is discarded by the first layer (PDCP layer) is data before the processing for the second layer (RLC layer). See snapshots below).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1007
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding remarks in pages 6-14 for independent claim 1, applicant argues that Uchino fails to teach, “the first layer processor circuitry is configured to discard the transmission data stored in the buffer, upon expiration of a time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information “.
In a lengthy argument as submitted on 10/24/2025, the applicant divided remarks in a plurality of argument sections.
For example, Argument 1: Argument 1-1: Page 6-8,
The applicant asserts, “regarding Uchino, that "the PDCP layer processing unit 110 may have a PDCP discard timer (PDCP Discard Timer) <i.e., first information/ PDCP discard timer> to discard packets stored in the PDCP layer processing unit 11O" and "RLC entity control unit 123 discards a staying packet, for which the RLC discard timer <i.e., second information/RLC discard timer> has expired."
However, Uchino fails to disclose that Uchino's PDCP layer processing unit 110 discards packets in the PDCP layer, upon expiration of the RLC discard timer. Uchino fails to disclose Applicant's claimed feature: "the first layer processor circuitry [configured to execute processing for a first layer on transmission data] is configured to discard the transmission data stored in the buffer, upon expiation of a time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information.". See page 8 of remarks as submitted on 10/24/2025.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. For example, Uchino discloses that RLC entity control unit 123 may stop the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired. In other words, the packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired is discarded in the PDCP layer processing unit 110. As a result, even if the RLC entity control unit 123 continues counting the RLC discard timer, the RLC entity control unit 123 cannot cause the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet and accordingly may stop the RLC discard timer so as to avoid unnecessarily counting the RLC discard timer. See ¶0041 along with Fig.1-6. Uchino further discloses that at step S106, the RLC layer processing unit 120 discards the staying packet from the RLC buffer 121…..the RLC layer processing unit 120 determines the PDCP PDUs for which the RLC discard timer has expired as the staying packets and discards the PDCP PDUs from the RLC buffer 121. See ¶0051 along with Fig.1-6.
In fact, the claims 4 & 12 of Uchino, further clarified aforesaid disclosures, by claiming as recited at least in claim 4, “wherein the PDCP layer processing unit has a PDCP discard timer configured to discard packets stored in the PDCP layer processing unit, and the RLC entity control unit stops the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired.”.
In Summary as mentioned by the examiner in previous office actions, there is a strong correspondence between discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) in order to alleviate overflow at the RLC layer correlating to data packets at PDCP layer (first layer) failing to be transmitted to the base station, in turns, improves overall transmission latency for uplink data, once discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) are coordinated as disclosed supra. In fact, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino, are similar to instant application, at least in ¶0075, where it recites, “first information defining discard conditions for a packet for the first layer is set in accordance with second information regarding transmission control for the second layer, and a packet satisfying the discard conditions is discarded from the buffer for the first layer. Therefore, it is possible to shorten a buffering time within which a packet is held in the buffer, and, even when low latency data is generated as new transmission data, it is possible to reduce latency until the low latency data is to be transmitted. As a result, it is possible to satisfy latency requirements for the low latency data.”, also, at least in ¶0067, where it recites, “first information defining conditions for discarding the packet.…the first layer processing unit 112 uses parameters for a different layer (e.g., a lower layer), that is, a second layer, and sets discard conditions for the packet.” Overall, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino can be summarized by the snapshots of fig. 4 and fig. 6, as reproduced next, quite a contrast to applicant’s arguments at pages 6-8 of remarks as of 10/24/2025.
PNG
media_image3.png
414
1155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Argument 1-2: Page 8,
As cited above, the Office Action on pages 7-8 indicates: "there is a strong correspondence between discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) in order to alleviate overflow at the RLC layer correlating to data packets at PDCP layer (first layer) failing to be transmitted to the base station, in turns, improves overall transmission latency for uplink data, once discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) are coordinated as disclosed supra."
However, it is not clear how and why the "strong correspondence between discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer)" of the Examiner's assertion is relevant with Applicant's claim 1's feature.
Already explained supra. For example, Uchino discloses that RLC entity control unit 123 may stop the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired. In other words, the packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired is discarded in the PDCP layer processing unit 110. As a result, even if the RLC entity control unit 123 continues counting the RLC discard timer, the RLC entity control unit 123 cannot cause the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet and accordingly may stop the RLC discard timer so as to avoid unnecessarily counting the RLC discard timer. See ¶0041 along with Fig.1-6. Uchino further discloses that at step S106, the RLC layer processing unit 120 discards the staying packet from the RLC buffer 121…..the RLC layer processing unit 120 determines the PDCP PDUs for which the RLC discard timer has expired as the staying packets and discards the PDCP PDUs from the RLC buffer 121. See ¶0051 along with Fig.1-6.
In fact, the claims 4 & 12 of Uchino, further clarified aforesaid disclosures, by claiming as recited at least in claim 4, “wherein the PDCP layer processing unit has a PDCP discard timer configured to discard packets stored in the PDCP layer processing unit, and the RLC entity control unit stops the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired.”. Please see the strong correspondence between discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) as disclosed by Uchino and claimed in claim 4 & 12.
Argument 1-3: Pages 9-10,
However, the comparison on pages 6-8 and 24-26 in the Office Action (as mailed on 06/24/2025) is comparison between Uchino and Applicant's Specification (not Applicant's claimed feature), and is not directly related to Applicant's claimed feature being allegedly disclosed by Uchino. The comparison does not support that Uchino discloses Applicant's claimed feature.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. For example, see MPEP §2173.03 (“Correspondence Between Specification and Claims”). MPEP §2173.03 recites, “The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. Glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP § 608.01(o) and MPEP § 2181, subsection IV. Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim. “.
Argument 2: Pages 10-11,
However, Uchino does not disclose or suggest that the PDCP layer processing unit 110 discards transmission data upon expiration of the RLC discard timer, or that the RLC entity control unit 123 discards transmission data, upon expiration of the PDCP discard timer.
Accordingly, even if paragraphs 0035 and 0039 of Uchino are considered, Uchino
fails to disclose the following claimed feature:
the first layer processor circuitry [configured to execute processing for a first layer on transmission data] is configured to discard the transmission data stored in the buffer, upon expiration of a time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. For example, Uchino discloses that RLC entity control unit 123 may stop the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired. In other words, the packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired is discarded in the PDCP layer processing unit 110. As a result, even if the RLC entity control unit 123 continues counting the RLC discard timer, the RLC entity control unit 123 cannot cause the PDCP layer processing unit 110 to retransmit the staying packet and accordingly may stop the RLC discard timer so as to avoid unnecessarily counting the RLC discard timer. See ¶0041 along with Fig.1-6. Uchino further discloses that at step S106, the RLC layer processing unit 120 discards the staying packet from the RLC buffer 121…..the RLC layer processing unit 120 determines the PDCP PDUs for which the RLC discard timer has expired as the staying packets and discards the PDCP PDUs from the RLC buffer 121. See ¶0051 along with Fig.1-6.
In fact, the claims 4 & 12 of Uchino, further clarified aforesaid disclosures, by claiming as recited at least in claim 4, “wherein the PDCP layer processing unit has a PDCP discard timer configured to discard packets stored in the PDCP layer processing unit, and the RLC entity control unit stops the RLC discard timer corresponding to a packet for which the PDCP discard timer has expired.”.
In Summary as mentioned by the examiner in previous office actions, there is a strong correspondence between discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) in order to alleviate overflow at the RLC layer correlating to data packets at PDCP layer (first layer) failing to be transmitted to the base station, in turns, improves overall transmission latency for uplink data, once discard timers at PDCP layer (first layer) and at RLC layer (second layer) are coordinated as disclosed supra. In fact, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino, are similar to instant application, at least in ¶0075, where it recites, “first information defining discard conditions for a packet for the first layer is set in accordance with second information regarding transmission control for the second layer, and a packet satisfying the discard conditions is discarded from the buffer for the first layer. Therefore, it is possible to shorten a buffering time within which a packet is held in the buffer, and, even when low latency data is generated as new transmission data, it is possible to reduce latency until the low latency data is to be transmitted. As a result, it is possible to satisfy latency requirements for the low latency data.”, also, at least in ¶0067, where it recites, “first information defining conditions for discarding the packet.…the first layer processing unit 112 uses parameters for a different layer (e.g., a lower layer), that is, a second layer, and sets discard conditions for the packet.” Overall, the aforesaid disclosures by Uchino can be summarized by the snapshots of fig. 4 and fig. 6, as reproduced next, quite a contrast to applicant’s arguments at pages 6-8 of remarks as of 10/24/2025.
PNG
media_image3.png
414
1155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Argument 3: Pages 11-14,
Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant's claimed feature for the following reasons.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the teaching of Sammour, in view of Uchino, to arrive at Applicant's claim feature "the first layer processor circuitry is configured to discard the transmission data stored in the buffer, upon expiration of a time corresponding to the second time that is for discarding the transmission data used by the second layer and that is configured by the second information," even if one of ordinary skill in the art tries to achieve the Examiner's mentioned purpose (i.e., "[have] a dual connectivity function... [providing] an efficient mechanism for transmitting uplink data in the dual connectivity efficiently"). At best, one of ordinary skill in the art would have merely included Uchino's technical features (1) and (2) above, rather than the teaching of paragraph 0035 of Uchino (which appears to disclose that the discarding by the PDCP layer processing unit 110 occurs when the PDCP discard timer expires), even if one of ordinary skill in the art tries to achieve the purpose alleged by the Examiner." (note: Applicant does not agree with such a modification).
In response of applicant’s lengthy argument that Uchino’s reference would not be an obvious combination with the teachings of Sammour so as to suggest applicants' invention. The Examiner would like to point out the following statement as identified by court “It is not required that the prior art disclose or suggest the properties newly-discovered by an applicant in order for there to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, as long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) and In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 166 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1970)”. In this case, the suggestion to combine the references, is provided by Uchino, as because, Uchino provides an efficient mechanism for transmitting uplink data in the dual connectivity efficiently. (¶0002-¶0012, Uchino)
There are NO further specific allegations for any another claims, hence, moot.
For these reasons, it is maintained that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over Sammour, in view of Uchino.
For similar reasons, it is maintained that independent claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable over Sammour, in view of Uchino.
As all other dependent claims depend either directly or indirectly from the independent claim 1, similar rationale also applies to all respective dependent claims.
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 MOHAMMED SHAMSUL CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0485. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9 AM- 6 PM EST (Friday Var.).
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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.
/MOHAMMED S CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467