DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Reply filed on February 11, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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
With respect to the Objection to the Title, the Applicant submits that the Examiner failed to suggest an alternative title and, therefore, the Applicant requests withdrawal of this objection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the withdrawal of the objection. MPEP §606.01 states that, where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed and, if a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment.
The Examiner did not suggest a new title so that the Applicant has a chance to supply a new title that the Applicant deems suitable. However, if the Applicant does not supply a new title at the time of allowance, the Examiner will change the title to “COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION APPARATUS FOR INDICATING A COUNT VALUE COMPRISING A HYPER FRAME NUMBER AND A PACKET DATA CONVERGENCE PROTOCOL SEQUENCE NUMBER”.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the prior art rejections on pages 8 and 9 of the Reply, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitation “retransmit a missing data packet based on a transmission status of each data packet after the second data packet” is vague and indefinite. Claim 1 recites sending a second data packet to the terminal device and then retransmitting a missing data packet but claim 1 is silent on sending any other data packet. Thus, the metes and bounds of “retransmit a missing data packet” is not clearly defined because a retransmission requires an initial transmission, which is not recited in claim 1. Furthermore, “each data packet after the second data packet” is not clearly defined because claim 1 merely recites a first data packet and a second data packet. Thus, the metes and bounds of “each data packet” are not clearly defined.
Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Independent claims 6, 11, and 16 recite the same or similar limitation as independent claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 depend on claims 6, 11, and 16, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 6, 11, and 16.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0232431 (hereinafter “Hsieh”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0014966 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Hsieh discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 1 and 11, a communication method and a communication apparatus (see at least paragraph 60, eNB) comprising:
at least one processor (see at least paragraph 60, one or more processors) configured to:
receive first indication information from a core network device (see at least Fig. 12B, step 1250B, and paragraph 181, the eNB receives SN Transfer Status message including a current count value from MME 114), wherein the first indication information indicates a value of a first count (first COUNT) of a first data packet, and the first COUNT comprises a first hyper frame number (first HFN) and a first packet data convergence protocol sequence number (first PDCP SN) (see at least Fig. 2C and paragraph 69, the current count value includes a Hyper Frame Number (HFN) and a PDCP SN); and
determine the value of the first COUNT of the first data packet based on the first indication information (see at least paragraph 181, the eNB applies the current count value, which can include the UL count and the DL count, to the subsequent packets).
Hsieh does not explicitly disclose determining a value of a second COUNT based on a value of a second HFN and a value of the first PDCP SN; sending a second data packet to the terminal device based on the value of the second COUNT; and retransmitting a missing data packet based on a transmission status of each data packet after the second data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses or suggests determining a value of a second COUNT based on a value of a second HFN and a value of the first PDCP SN (see at least paragraphs 394-395, all PDCP packets (including a second packet with a second COUNT value) have a PDCP sequence number and have a value increased by 1 from a previous value when generating the packet and, in the case of exceeding the preset PDCP sequence number size, the PDCP SN is counted from 0, and increases an HFN by 1); sending a second data packet to the terminal device based on the value of the second COUNT (see at least paragraphs 394 and 395, actual data transmission of the PDCP packets including data packets, where the UE and the base station hold the COUNT value and use the COUNT value for ciphering and integrity protection); and retransmitting a missing data packet based on a transmission status of each data packet after the second data packet (see at least paragraphs 337, 350, and 419, a function of reporting a status of lost PDCP PDUs to the transmission side and a function of requesting retransmission of lost PDCP PDUs, where the transmitter identifies whether the transmitted data has been successfully received and retransmit lost data).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Kim in to the invention of Hsieh in order to use the COUNT value for ciphering and integrity protection and to prevent data loss by retransmitting a missing data packet.
Hsieh discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 2 and 12, the at least one processor is configured to receive the first data packet from the core network device, wherein the first data packet comprises the first indication information (see at least paragraph 179, S-GW transmits a GTP: Forward User data message to the target eNB, where the S-GW and the MME collectively correspond to the core network device).
Hsieh discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 6 and 16, a communication method and a communication apparatus (see at least paragraphs 56-57, EPC) comprising:
at least one processor (see at least paragraph 60, one or more processors) configured to:
determine first indication information (see at least Fig. 12B, step 1250B, and paragraphs 179-181, MME 114 determines and includes a current count value in the S1AP: MME Status Transfer message), wherein the first indication information indicates a value of a first count (first COUNT) of a first data packet, and the first COUNT comprises a hyper frame number (HFN) and a first packet data convergence protocol sequence number (first PDCP SN) (see at least Fig. 2C and paragraph 69, the current count value includes a Hyper Frame Number (HFN) and a PDCP SN); and
send the first indication information to an access network device (see at least Fig. 12B, step 1250B, and paragraphs 179-181, MME 114 transmits the S1AP: MME Status Transfer message to an eNB).
Hsieh does not explicitly disclose determining a value of a second COUNT based on a value of a second HFN and a value of the first PDCP SN; sending a second data packet to the terminal device based on the value of the second COUNT; and retransmitting a missing data packet based on a transmission status of each data packet after the second data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses or suggests determining a value of a second COUNT based on a value of a second HFN and a value of the first PDCP SN (see at least paragraphs 394-395, all PDCP packets (including a second packet with a second COUNT value) have a PDCP sequence number and have a value increased by 1 from a previous value when generating the packet and, in the case of exceeding the preset PDCP sequence number size, the PDCP SN is counted from 0, and increases an HFN by 1); sending a second data packet to the terminal device based on the value of the second COUNT (see at least paragraphs 394 and 395, actual data transmission of the PDCP packets including data packets, where the UE and the base station hold the COUNT value and use the COUNT value for ciphering and integrity protection); and retransmitting a missing data packet based on a transmission status of each data packet after the second data packet (see at least paragraphs 337, 350, and 419, a function of reporting a status of lost PDCP PDUs to the transmission side and a function of requesting retransmission of lost PDCP PDUs, where the transmitter identifies whether the transmitted data has been successfully received and retransmit lost data).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Kim in to the invention of Hsieh in order to use the COUNT value for ciphering and integrity protection and to prevent data loss by retransmitting a missing data packet.
Hsieh discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 7 and 17, the at least one processor is configured to send the first data packet to the access network device, wherein the first data packet comprises the first indication information (see at least paragraph 179, S-GW transmits a GTP: Forward User data message, which is received by the target eNB, where the S-GW and the MME collectively correspond to the core network device).
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh in view of Kim, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0055169 (hereinafter “Ogura”).
Regarding claims 3, 8, 13, and 18, Hsieh, as modified by Kim, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except the first indication information carried in a first field and a length of the first field is 32 bits.
However, in an analogous art, Ogura discloses or suggests the first indication information carried in a first field and a length of the first field is 32 bits (see at least paragraph 56, 3GPP specifies a COUNT value parameter with a size of 32 bits and also specifies that the COUNT value indicates an HFN and a PDCP SN).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Ogura in to the invention of Hsieh, as modified by Kim, in order to enable encoding and decoding to conceal user data.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20, Hsieh, as modified by Kim, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except the first indication carried in a second field and a third field, and the second field is a general packet radio service tunneling protocol-user plane sequence number field, or the second field is a quality of service flow identifier sequence number field, wherein a sum of lengths of the second field and the third field is 32 bits.
However, in an analogous art, Ogura discloses or suggests the first indication carried in a second field and a third field, and the second field is a general packet radio service tunneling protocol-user plane sequence number field, or the second field is a quality of service flow identifier sequence number field (see at least Figs. 14-17 and paragraphs 112-115, Fig. 16 illustrates PDCP-SN+HFN in octets 2 and 3 in a GTP-U Extension header type, where the GTP-U field carrying PDCP-SN+HFN corresponds to a GTP-U SN field), wherein a sum of lengths of the second field and the third field is 32 bits (see at least Fig. 16, a sum of lengths of PDCP-SN+HFN is 32 bits).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Ogura in to the invention of Hsieh, as modified by Kim, in order to enable encoding and decoding to conceal user data.
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 Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 05/14/2026
Prosecution Insights