CTFR 18/571,016 CTFR 89711 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to the application filed on 03/13/2026. The claims 2-3 have been canceled by the applicant. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments/remarks filed on 03/13/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 and the similarly amended independent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Upon further consideration, the combination of the previously cited prior art reference(s) Yilmaz et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2020167170) in view of Byun et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210067409) does address the new amended limitations set forth within independent claim(s) 1. Therefore, new rejections have been formulated to address the limitations as set forth in independent claim 1 and the similarly amended independent and their respective dependent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2020167170) in view of Byun et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210067409) . Regarding claim 1 Yilmaz disclose, an apparatus comprising means for performing at least one processor para. 591, “The embodiments herein may be implemented through a processor” and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory para. 592, “The MN 110 may further comprise a memory 550” and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: support a split bearer involving a first entity associated with a primary path of the split bearer and a second entity associated with secondary path of the split bearer, wherein the first entity and the second entity are configured for data transfer para. 513, “if the transmitting PDCP entity is associated with two RLC entities” ; determine a total amount of data volume for the data transfer para. 525, “if the total amount of PDCP data volume and RLC data volume pending for initial transmission (as specified in TS 38.322 [5]) in the two associated RLC entities is equal to or larger than ul-DataSplitThreshold” ; if the total amount of data volume for the data transfer is greater than or equal to a threshold value of the split bearer para. 525-530, “if SCG is suspended due to a network indication: submit the PDCP PDU to the MCG RLC entity; else - submit the PDCP PDU to either the primary RLC entity or the secondary RLC entity” , submit a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU); to either the first entity or the second entity para. 525-530, “submit the PDCP PDU to the MCG RLC entity; else - submit the PDCP PDU to either the primary RLC entity or the secondary RLC entity;” ; if the total amount of data volume for the data transfer is less than the threshold value of the split bearer para. 525-530, “if the total amount of PDCP data volume and RLC data volume pending for initial transmission (as specified in TS 38.322 [5]) in the two associated RLC entities is equal to or larger than ul-DataSplitThreshold” , submit the PDCP PDU to the first entity if the primary path is available to use para. 530-532, “if SCG is suspended due to a network indication: if the two associated RLC entities belong to the different Cell Groups: - submit the PDCP PDU to the MCG RLC entity” , and submit the PDCP PDU to the second entity if the primary path is not available to use para. 530-532, “submit the PDCP PDU to the MCG RLC entity”, wherein the unavailability is caused by a temporary condition associated with MAC entity of the primary path para. 530, “SCG is suspended” , and wherein the temporary condition is indicated by the MAC entity by sending an indication to a PDCP entity para. 189, “Temporary poor coverage conditions in the SN may not need to be handled with an SCG RLF and release of the SN/SCG in subsequent reconfigurations, but may be handled in a simpler manner, e.g., by suspending the SCG or by not resuming the SCG” : Yilmaz does not specifically disclose, use the temporary condition to determine when the primary path is again available . However, Byun teach, para. 177, “the UE can reconfigure the primary path autonomously so that the uplink transmission can be performed via only the MCG RLC entity without the signalling overhead” . Yilmaz and Byun are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to cell configuration parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Byun in the system of Yilmaz so the user equipment can gain or resume communication with the network after a period of inactivity or mobility. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability and performance of the communication system. Regarding claim 4 Yilmaz disclose, wherein the temporary condition is caused by lack of uplink time alignment para. 305-306, “The target node, e.g. the MN 110, is unaware of the signal quality to the SN 111, e.g. due to long inactivity time, or that the UE 120 has moved during the RRCJNACTIVE state”. Regarding claim 5 Yilmaz and Ericsson does not specifically disclose, wherein the temporary condition is caused by a non-completed random-access procedure. However, Byun teach, para. 53, “UL transport channels include an uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) for transmitting user traffic or control signals and a random access channel (RACH) normally used for initial access to a cell”. Yilmaz and Byun are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to cell configuration parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Byun in the system of Yilmaz so the user equipment can gain or resume communication with the network after a period of inactivity or mobility. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability and performance of the communication system. Regarding claim 6 Yilmaz disclose, wherein the temporary condition is caused by a reset of the MAC entity para. 382, “In DC, the serving cells of the MCG other than the PCell can only be activated or deactivated by the MAC Control Element received on the MCG, and the serving cells of the SCG other than PSCell can only be activated or deactivated by the MAC Control Element received on the SCG”. Regarding claim 7 Yilmaz disclose, wherein the temporary condition is indicated by the MAC entity by sending an indication to a PDCP entity para. 379, “In some embodiments, the indication to suspend or resume the SCG is provided in a MAC Control Element (MAC CE). This may either be an extended use of an existing MAC CE, or by introducing a new MAC CE”. Regarding claim 8 Yilmaz disclose, wherein the indication causes PDCP entity to stop submitting one or more PDUs to the primary path para. 88, “Reception of the SN Release Request message triggers the source SN to stop providing user data to the UE”. Regarding claim 9 Yilmaz does not specifically disclose, wherein the temporary condition is determined to be over, wherein the apparatus is further configured to perform: if the total amount of data volume for the data transfer is less than the threshold value of the split bearer, prevent submitting a further PDCP PDU to the second entity, and submit the further PDCP PDU to the first entity para. 137, “If the total amount of PDCP data volume and RLC data volume pending for initial transmission in the two associated RLC entities is less than the split threshold, the UE may submit the PDCP Data PDU to the primary RLC entity”. Yilmaz and Byun are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to cell configuration parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Byun in the system of Yilmaz so the network can avoid the overhead of both links for minor traffic. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the efficiency and optimization of the use of the resources of the network. Regarding claim 10 Yilmaz disclose, wherein the total amount of data volume for the data transfer comprises a total amount of PDCP data volume and data volume pending for initial transmission in the first entity and the second entity para. 525-530, “if the total amount of PDCP data volume and RLC data volume pending for initial transmission (as specified in TS 38.322 [5]) in the two associated RLC entities is equal to or larger than ul-DataSplitThreshold. if SCG is suspended due to a network indication: submit the PDCP PDU to the MCG RLC entity; -else submit the PDCP PDU to either the primary RLC entity or the secondary RLC entity” . Regarding claim 11 Yilmaz disclose, wherein the means are apparatus is further configured to perform: receiving, from a network node, a split bearer configuration that configures the UE apparatus, if the total amount of data volume for the data transfer is less than the threshold value of the split bearer, to submit the PDCP PDU to the first entity if the primary path is available to use, and to submit the PDCP PDU to the second entity if the primary path is not available to use para. 553, “the PDCP handled the suspension of the SCG implicitly by switching primary path to MCG, if needed, by implicitly turning off duplication, etc. Another alternative would be for the network 100, e.g. the MN 110, to reconfigure the affected bearers explicitly when SCG is suspended, i.e. explicitly switch the primary path of all split bearers to MCG, deactivate duplication for split bearers, etc. However, this will require for the network to reconfigure all the bearers back to their original setting when the SCG is resumed”. Regarding claim 12 the limitations of claim 12 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 1. Claim 14 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1 . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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). 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. /RR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471 /SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/571,016 Page 2 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/571,016 Page 3 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/571,016 Page 4 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/571,016 Page 5 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/571,016 Page 6 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/571,016 Page 7 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/571,016 Page 8 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/571,016 Page 9 Art Unit: 2471
Prosecution Insights