DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 12/09/2025.
2. Claims 1-30 are pending.
3. Claims 13, 14 and 17 are amended.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/09/2025 have been carefully considered but they are not deemed fully persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments include “Thus, the SDAP control data of Kim '693 is not the same as, and fails to disclose, the "one or more service data adaptation protocol headers" recited in independent claim 21.” And “The discussion of data concatenation and header compression that is performed for each piece of data in Kim'693, however, is not the same as "ciphering the concatenated service data unit based at least in part on the concatenated service data unit being separate from the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers," as recited in independent claim 21”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is evident from the mappings found in the rejection below that “one or more service data adaptation protocol headers” (see Fig.14c-15c Showing the SDAP headers and para [0109-0120] shows “In the above, if the data concatenation procedure is performed in the SDAP layer device (or new layer device), PDCP data processing (e.g., header compression procedure, integrity protection procedure, or ciphering procedure) is performed for one PDCP SDU (or SDAP data PDU), obtained by concatenating multiple SDAP SDUs, a PDCP header is generated, and one PDCP serial number with regard to the PDCP data PDU may be generated and assigned. If the data concatenation procedure is performed in the PDCP layer device in the above, PDCP data processing (e.g., integrity protection procedure or ciphering procedure) is performed for one concatenated PDCP SDU obtained by concatenating multiple PDCP SDUs (e.g., compressed PDCP SDU to which a header compression procedure is applied when the header compression procedure is configured), a PDCP header is generated, and one PDCP serial number with regard to the PDCP data PDU may be generated and assigned. [0116] In the above, if the data concatenation procedure or de-concatenation procedure is configured for a random bearer, or if an SDAP header or a header compression procedure (e.g., robust header compression (ROHC) and Ethernet header compression (EHC)) or a data compression procedure (uplink data compression (UDC)) are configured to be used or added, with regard to a bearer or upper layer device for which the data concatenation procedure is configured, it may adversely affect the data processing speed. This is because the transmitting terminal needs to add the SDAP header to each data or perform a header compression procedure for each data or the receiving terminal needs to remove the SDAP header for each data or perform a header decompression procedure for each data. Therefore, with regard to each bearer or upper layer device (PDCP layer device, SDAP layer device, or new layer device), the data concatenation procedure, SDAP header or header compression procedure, or data compression procedure may be limited not to be established together. For example, if the data concatenation procedure is configured, there may be limitation such that the SDAP header or header compression procedure, or data compression procedure may not be established. As another method, if the SDAP header or header compression procedure, or data compression procedure is established, it is possible to limit the data concatenation procedure not to be established.”) and Fig.14c-15c shows “the concatenated service data unit being separate from the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers” of which ciphering (decrypting) is based on the being separate from each other. Therefore the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejection of the claims is respectfully maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-3, 9, 13-16, 21-23, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (USPUB 2022/0150693 A1) hereinafter Kim.
6. Regarding Claim 1, Kim disclosed a first wireless device, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device (see Fig.1 and associated texts) to:
identify a first portion and a second portion of a protocol data unit, the first portion comprising one or more service data adaptation protocol headers and the second portion comprising a concatenated service data unit that includes a plurality of service data units; cipher the concatenated service data unit based at least in part on the concatenated service data unit being separate from the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers; and transmit, to a second wireless device, one or more messages comprising the protocol data unit comprising the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers and the ciphered concatenated service data unit (see Fig. 14c-15c, para [0109-0112] and [0115-0120]).
Claim 21 recites A method that further includes limitations that are substantially similar to claim 1. As such, is rejected under the same rationale as above.
7. Regarding Claims 2, 14 and 22, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers are included as part of one or more respective concatenation headers of the protocol data unit, and the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers and the one or more respective concatenation headers are unciphered based at least in part on the concatenated service data unit being separate from the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers and the one or more respective concatenation headers (see para [0109-0120] and [0220]).
8. Regarding Claims 3, 15 and 23, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 1, wherein a first service data adaptation protocol header of the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers is adjacent to a first service data unit of the plurality of service data units and a second service data adaptation protocol header of the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers is adjacent to a second service data unit of the plurality of service data units, and the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers are ciphered or unciphered based at least in part on the ciphering of the concatenated service data unit (see para [0109-0120], [0204] and [0220]).
9. Regarding Claim 9 and 29, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers comprise a service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: output the protocol data unit for transmission to the second wireless device, wherein the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit is included as part of a respective concatenation header of the protocol data unit, and wherein the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit and the respective concatenation header occur prior to the concatenated service data unit (see para [0109-0120] and [0230]).
10. Regarding Claim 13, Kim disclosed a first wireless device, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: receive a protocol data unit comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion comprising one or more unciphered service data adaptation protocol headers and the second portion comprising a ciphered concatenated service data unit that includes a plurality of concatenated service data units; and decipher the second portion of the protocol data unit based at least in part on the ciphered concatenated service data unit being separate from the one or more unciphered service data adaptation protocol headers (see para [0109-0112] and [0115-0120]).
Claim 30 recites A method that further includes limitations that are substantially similar to claim 1. As such, is rejected under the same rationale as above.
11. Regarding Claim 16, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 13, wherein the one or more unciphered service data adaptation protocol headers each comprise an unciphered service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit, and the unciphered service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit is separate from the ciphered concatenated service data unit (see para [0109-0120] and [0204] and [0220]).
12. Regarding Claim 17, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 16, wherein the2 unciphered service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit is included as part of a respective concatenation header of the protocol data unit, and the unciphered service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit and the respective concatenation header occur prior to the plurality of ciphered concatenated service data units (see para [0109-0120], [0204] and [0220]).
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.
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.
13. Claim(s) 4-8, 10, 12, 18, 20 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (USPUB 2022/0150693 A1) hereinafter Kim, further in view of Kim, Sangbum et al. (USPUB 2021/0112452 A1 from Applicant’s IDS filed on 02/26/2025) hereinafter Sangbum.
14. Regarding Claims 4 and 24, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers comprise a service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: output, to a concatenation buffer, the plurality of service data units with the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit.
Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers comprise a service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: output, to a concatenation buffer, the plurality of service data units with the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit.
However, in analogous art Sangbum disclosed wherein the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers comprise a service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: output, to a concatenation buffer, the plurality of service data units with the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit (see para [0101-0102] and [0183]);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kim and Sangbum since Kim teaches a technique of ciphering Service Data Adaptation Protocol data headers and packets and Sangbum teaches a way of processing the data in a buffer, and as such both are within the same environment.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the buffer by Sangbum into the wireless processing system of Kim in order for reducing processing time in a wireless system (Kim, abstract and [0006]).
15. Regarding Claims 5 and 25, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers comprise a service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: output the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit for transmission to the second wireless device, wherein the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit is excluded from concatenation with the plurality of service data units (Sangbum, see para [0101-0102] and [0183]).
Same motivation as claim 4 applies to claim 5
16. Regarding Claims 6 and 26, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: skip addition of the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit to a concatenation buffer for obtaining the concatenated service data unit; and apply the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit for transmission to the second wireless device after addition of a packet data convergence protocol header (Sangbum, see para [0101-0102] and [0183]).
Same motivation as claim 4 applies to claim 5.
17. Regarding Claim 7 and 27, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more service data adaptation protocol headers comprise a service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: output the concatenated service data unit from a concatenation buffer based at least in part on detecting the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit among the plurality of service data units; and output, for transmission to the second wireless device, the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit with the plurality of service data units of the concatenated service data unit (Sangbum, see para [0101-0103] and [0183]).
Same motivation as claim 4 applies to claim 7.
18. Regarding Claims 8 and 28, Kim disclosed the first wireless device of claim 7, wherein, to output the concatenated service data unit from the concatenation buffer, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: output the concatenated service data unit from the concatenation buffer irrespective of whether a quantity of the plurality of service data units satisfies a threshold quantity, whether a concatenation timer is expired, or both, in response to detecting the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit (Kim, see para [0435-438]]).
19. Regarding Claims 10 and 18, Kim disclosed The first wireless device of claim 9, wherein the respective concatenation header comprises a length field that indicates a payload size of the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit (Kim, see [0392] and [0520]).
20. Regarding Claims 12 and 20, Kim disclosed The first wireless device of claim 1, wherein the protocol data unit comprises a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit, a PDCP control protocol data unit, one or more robust header compression (ROHC) protocol data units, one or more ethernet header compression (EHC) protocol data units, or any combination thereof (Kim, see Fig.9 and [0246-0247]).
21. Claim(s) 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (USPUB 2022/0150693 A1) hereinafter Kim, further in view of Kim, Sangbum et al. (USPUB 2021/0112452 A1 from Applicant’s IDS filed on 02/26/2025) hereinafter Sangbum, further in view of Liu et al. (USPUB 2022/0038978 A1 from Applicant’s IDS filed on 02/26/2025) hereinafter Liu.
22. Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Kim and Sangbum disclosed the first wireless device of claim 10, wherein the payload size comprising a value of zero indicates a presence of the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit.
Kim and Sangbum do not expressly disclose wherein the payload size comprising a value of zero indicates a presence of the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit.
However, in analogous art Liu disclosed wherein the payload size comprising a value of zero indicates a presence of the service data adaptation protocol control protocol data unit (see para [0092]);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kim, Sangbum and Liu since Kim teaches a technique of ciphering Service Data Adaptation Protocol data headers and packets and Liu teaches a way of processing data in headers, and as such both are within the same environment.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the technique for processing data in headers by Liu into the wireless processing system of Kim and Sangbum in order for reducing processing time in a wireless system (Kim, abstract and [0006]).
Conclusion
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
An apparatus of a cellular data communication device includes one or more memory devices configured to store data corresponding to a plurality of service data units (SDUs) from a protocol layer higher than a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer of a cellular data network, and one or more processors operably coupled to the one or more memory devices and configured to concatenate the plurality of SDUs into a single protocol data unit (PDU) above the PDCP layer. (Zhang et al. ‘818)
Systems, apparatuses, methods, and computer-readable media for the reduction of handover interruptions. Some embodiments include a user equipment (UE) that supports simultaneous connectivity with a source 5G Node B (gNB) and a target gNB during a handover. Some embodiments include the UE receiving source path data packets from the source gNB and target path data packets from a target gNB. The UE performs a first reorder of the one or more source path data packets and the one or more target path data packets by sequence number (SN), and the UE performs header decompression on the reordered source path data packets, separately from the reordered target path data packets. After the header decompressions the UE performs a second reorder of the source path data packets and the target path data packets together by SN, and discards any duplicate data packets based on SNs. (Guo et al. ‘436)
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 DAVOUD ZAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2697, Fax (571) 273-2697. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:30-5:30pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. 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.
/DAVOUD A ZAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights