DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This Action is in response to Applicant’s remarks and amended claims filed on April 6, 2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Terminal Disclaimer
2. The terminal disclaimer filed on April 6, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Number # 10,959,134 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
3. The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claims 1, 6, and 11 filed on April 6, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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(a) 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, 3-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0302240 A1), in view of Oguchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0076114 A1), and Gao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0076114 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tamaki et al. teach a computer-implemented method for coordinating communication of a plurality of data packets (Fig(s).2A and 2B), the method comprising:
receiving, by a first base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 1C @ 140a, and 2A), data packets from a user device (Fig(s).1A @ 102a, 116, 1C @ 102a, 116, and 2A),
initiating, by at least one of the first base station and a second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the first base station to the second base station (Fig(s).2A @ 226, 5 @ 510, 6 @ 608); and
transmitting, by the second base station, a data packet to the user device upon detecting completion of the handover. (read as packet data is exchanged between target eNodeB and a UE (Fig.2B))
However, Tamaki et al. fail to explicitly teach the first base station including a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to a first radio device;
wherein a packet data convergence protocol is split between the first base station and the second base station.
Oguchi teaches the first base station (Fig(s).1 @ 10a and 2 @ 10) including a first baseband unit device (Fig.2 @ 11) communicatively coupled to a first radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures by network nodes in a communication network.
However, Tamaki et al. and Oguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the base station and the other base station.
Gao et al. teach a method wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality (read as user plane protocol (Paragraph [0109])) is split between the base station and the other base station.(read as “Splitting a user plane protocol stack at a given point results in multiple user plane paths, with one user plane path through the macro eNB and another user plane path through the LeNB.”(Fig.7 @ 720; Paragraph(s) [0109] and [0116]) Also, “The user plane can include various protocol layers, including a PDCP layer, RLC layer, MAC layer, and physical layer.”(Paragraph(s) [0109] and [0116]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the function for splitting a user plane protocol stack as taught by Gao et al. and the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of enhancing packet distribution by network nodes in a communication network.
Regarding claim 6, Tamaki et al. teach a base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 1C @ 140a, and 2A) comprising:
wherein the base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 1C @ 140a, and 2A) is configured to:
receive data packets from a user device(Fig(s).1A @ 102a, 116, 1C @ 102a, 116, and 2A), and
perform a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the base station to another base station. (Fig(s).2A, 2B, 5, and 6)
However, Tamaki et al. fail to explicitly teach a first radio device; and
a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to the first radio device,
wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the base station and the other base station.
Oguchi teaches a first radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14); and
a first baseband unit device (Fig.2 @ 11) communicatively coupled to the first radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures by network nodes in a communication network.
However, Tamaki et al. and Oguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the base station and the other base station.
Gao et al. teach a method wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality (read as user plane protocol (Paragraph [0109])) is split between the base station and the other base station.(read as “Splitting a user plane protocol stack at a given point results in multiple user plane paths, with one user plane path through the macro eNB and another user plane path through the LeNB.”(Fig.7 @ 720; Paragraph(s) [0109] and [0116]) Also, “The user plane can include various protocol layers, including a PDCP layer, RLC layer, MAC layer, and physical layer.”(Paragraph(s) [0109] and [0116]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the function for splitting a user plane protocol stack as taught by Gao et al. and the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of enhancing packet distribution by network nodes in a communication network.
Regarding claim 11, Tamaki et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (read as memory (Paragraph [0138])) having recorded thereon instructions (read as software (Paragraph [0138])) executable by a first base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 1C @ 140a, and 2A) to implement a method for coordinating communication of a plurality of data packets (Fig(s).2A and 2B), the method comprising:
receiving, by the first base station, data packets from a user device (Fig(s).1A @ 102a, 116, 1C @ 102a, 116, and 2A),
initiating, by at least one of the first base station and a second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the first base station to the second base station (Fig(s).2A @ 226, 5 @ 510, 6 @ 608); and
transmitting, by the second base station, a data packet to the user device upon detecting completion of the handover. (read as packet data is exchanged between target eNodeB and a UE (Fig.2B))
However, Tamaki et al. fail to explicitly teach the first base station including a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to a first radio device;
wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the first base station and the second base station.
Oguchi teaches the first base station (Fig(s).1 @ 10a and 2 @ 10) including a first baseband unit device (Fig.2 @ 11) communicatively coupled to a first radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures by network nodes in a communication network.
However, Tamaki et al. and Oguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the base station and the other base station.
Gao et al. teach a method wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality (read as user plane protocol (Paragraph [0109])) is split between the base station and the other base station. (read as “Splitting a user plane protocol stack at a given point results in multiple user plane paths, with one user plane path through the macro eNB and another user plane path through the LeNB.”(Fig.7 @ 720; Paragraph(s) [0109] and [0116]) Also, “The user plane can include various protocol layers, including a PDCP layer, RLC layer, MAC layer, and physical layer.”(Paragraph(s) [0109] and [0116]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the function for splitting a user plane protocol stack as taught by Gao et al. and the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of enhancing packet distribution by network nodes in a communication network.
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 13, and as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, Tamaki et al. teach “Apparatus and methods of handing over a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) that belongs to a group of WTRUs from an originating base station to a target base station …”(Fig(s).1A, 1C, 2A, 2B, 5, and 6; Abstract)
Oguchi teaches the second base station (Fig(s).1 @ 10b and 2 @ 10) includes a second baseband unit device (Fig.2 @ 11) communicatively coupled to a second radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14); and
However, Tamaki et al. and Oguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein:
a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the first radio device and the second radio device.
Gao et al. teach a method wherein:
a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the first radio device (read as macro eNB (Fig.7 @ 104)) and the second radio device (read as LeNB (Fig.7 @ 108-1)). (read as “Splitting a user plane protocol stack at a given point results in multiple user plane paths, with one user plane path through the macro eNB and another user plane path through the LeNB.”(Fig.7 @ 720; Paragraph(s) [0109] and [0116]) Also, “The user plane can include various protocol layers, including a PDCP layer, RLC layer, MAC layer, and physical layer.”(Paragraph(s) [0109] and [0116]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the function for splitting a user plane protocol stack as taught by Gao et al. and the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of enhancing packet distribution by network nodes in a communication network.
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 14, and as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, Tamaki et al., as modified by Oguchi and Gao et al., teach a method (Fig(s), 2A, 2B), a base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 114b and 1C @ 140a, 140b, 140c), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (read as memory (Paragraph [0138])) wherein the initiating comprises initiating the handover in a control plane. (read as “A source eNB may initiate a handover procedure (from a control plane perspective) and forward incoming data that has not yet been delivered to the WTRU to the target eNB for eventual delivery to the WTRU (from a user plane perspective) using an X2 or S1 interface. ”(Paragraph [0052]))
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, and as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, Tamaki et al., as modified by Oguchi and Gao et al., teach a method (Fig(s), 2A, 2B), a base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 114b and 1C @ 140a, 140b, 140c), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (read as memory (Paragraph [0138])) wherein the first base station (Fig.1C @ 140a) and the second base station (Fig.1C @ 140b) are communicatively coupled via an X2 interface. (read as X2 interface (Fig.1C @ X2))
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
3GPP (“TS 36.323 V11.1.0” December 2012) document teaches “A PDCP entity is associated either to the control plane or the user plane depending on which radio bearer it is carrying data for.” (Section 4.2.2, page 8)
Bi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2013/0088960 A1) teaches “The use of data splitting between a single PDCP entity and multiple RLC entities allows a CoMP transmission to be setup and configured for individual radio bearers so that the data packets of one radio bearer may be transmitted over multiple transmission points (e.g., eNBs, cells, RRHs, and so on).”(Paragraph [0053])
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 response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
April 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights