FINAL REJECTION
This Office action is responsive to the response and amendment (“Amendment”) filed February 19, 2026.
The instant 18/600,017 application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent 11,870,593 to Pradas et al. “the ‘593 Patent”), which issued January 9, 2024 from U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 18/060,015, filed November 30, 2022 as a continuation application of 17/314,802 (now U.S. Patent 11,552,745), filed May 7, 2021 as a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 15/754,072 (now U.S. Patent 11,005,606), filed February 21, 2018 as a 371 Application of PCT/EP2017/082577, filed December 13, 2017. The ‘593 Patent has an earliest possible U.S. filing date of March 24, 2017 based on provisional application 62/476,505.
Claims 1-9 were originally pending in this application. By way of a preliminary amendment filed with the application, claims 1-9 are canceled and claims 10-35 are added. In the instant Amendment, claim 17 is amended. Thus claims 10-35 are pending and are rejected below.
This action is Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘593 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘593 Patent.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the ‘593 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Because the instant ‘593 Patent is not deemed to contain claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply, rather than the pre-AIA provisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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.
Reissue Amendment
The Amendment of February 19, 2026 is objected to for the following:
The amendment adds new claims 10-35 but does not underline them as per 37 CFR 1.173(d)(2). Note that new claims must be underlined in their entirety. A proper amendment meeting Rule 173 is required in response to this Office action. See also MPEP § 1453.
Claim Rejections - § 251
Claims 10-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP § 1412.02 II.):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
(Step 1: MPEP § 1412.02 II. A.) In the instant case and by way of the instant amendment, Patent Owner seeks to present broadened independent claims 10, 17, 22, and 30 by removing subject matter in issued independent claim 1, specifically as to the first two limitations of issued claim 1 (removed from all new claims), the steps at the first entity (removed from claims 22 and 30), the steps at the second entity (removed from claims 10 and 30), and the steps at the PDCP entity (removed from claims 17 and 22). Thus the newly presented claims have been broadened.
(Step 2: MPEP 1412.02 § II. B.) The record of the prior 15/754,072 application prosecution indicates that, responsive to a rejection of claim 1 over prior art references mailed June 19, 2020, Patent Owner filed an amendment September 17, 2020 wherein such limitations were added to grandparent independent method claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
475
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the matter added had been previously deemed patentable subject matter by the examiner (the matter added to claim 1 was primarily that of dependent claims 3 and 5, deemed to contain allowable subject matter in the non-final rejection), Patent Owner further additionally argued specifically the patentability of these features. The underlying grandparent application was then allowed precisely because this matter was added to the claims.
If an original patent claim limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue application was originally relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art, the omitted limitation relates to subject matter previously surrendered by applicant. The reliance by applicant to define the original patent claims over the art can be by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by application that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. MPEP § 1412.02 II. B. 2.
Likewise, while the matter was added in the grandparent application, while the "original application" includes the prosecution record of the application that issued as the patent for which the reissue application was filed, in addition, the "original application" includes the patent family’s entire prosecution history. MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 1316-18, 94 USPQ2d 1598 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1347, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022) and North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1339-40, 1349-50. For example, surrender may occur because of the prosecution history of related applications. Here, the surrender occurred in the grandparent case, which directly led to the allowance of the parent case, which directly led to the allowance of the instant application. MBO Laboratories 602 F.3d 1316-18, citing North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1339-40, 1349-50 (“[e]ven though the reissue patent corrected a patent that issued from a continuation application-not from the original application-we found that the patentee's surrender of subject matter during the original application carried through to the continuation application”)
Therefore, the limitations above are surrendered subject matter and are clearly in the area of the surrendered subject matter. See also MPEP § 1412.02 II. B. 1. B.
(Step 3: MPEP § 1412.02 II. C) It is noted that the limitations are all removed from the new claims in their entirety in the manner noted above. Therefore impermissible recapture exists.
Claims 17-35 are rejected under 35 USC 251 for not claiming subject matter directed to the invention disclosed in the original patent.
To satisfy the original patent requirement where a new invention is sought by reissue, the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention (see MPEP §1412.01). Therefore, claims drawn to an invention comprising a newly claimed combination of features that were only disclosed in the original patent as suggested alternatives (and not as a single combination) or only as part of the original invention and not as an invention separate from the original invention would not satisfy the original patent requirement.
MPEP §1412.01 states the Examiner should review the reissue application to determine if:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied;
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application; and
(C) the newly claimed invention is clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
As to (A), the Examiner finds that new independent claim 17, is not described in the original patent specification such that 35 USC 112(a) is met for the reasons set forth above. Claims 22 and 30 are determined to meet §112(a).
As to (B), the Examiner notes here that the ‘469 Patent describes throughout a method utilizing all three entities originally claimed, namely the PDCP entity, first RLC entity, and second RLC entity. ‘469 Patent at FIGS 1, 2, 6-9, as well as the associated description. Thus there is no showing in the disclosure of an intent to claim the individual elements on their own.
As to (C), the Examiner finds that the newly claimed inventions of claims 17, 22, and 30 are NOT clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features for a similar reason as above, namely as the ‘469 Patent disclosure does not describe these elements or the steps solely performed at them as separate embodiments.
For the above reasons, claims 17-35 do not claim subject matter directed to the invention disclosed in the original patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claims 10-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent PGPUB 2015/0043435A1 to Blankenship et al. (“Blankenship”), with a publication date of February 12, 2015.
As to claim 10, Blankenship discloses:
A method in a network comprising a first radio link control (RLC) entity associated with a first link and a second RLC entity associated with a second link, the method comprising:
Blankenship discloses a method in a network. Blankenship at FIG 1 and at ¶¶40-41. The network includes a first and second RLC entity associated with a first and second link, respectively. Id. and at ¶¶123-124, noting small cells 112 (first entity) and 114 (second entity).
receiving, from a receiver and at the first RLC entity, a positive acknowledgement indicating a successful receipt of an original Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) on a first link associated with the first RLC entity;
Blankenship discloses at the first entity, receiving from a receiver (UE) an ACK indicating receipt of a PDCP PDU on the first link. Blankenship at ¶¶103-104, 124-125, and 215.
transmitting, by the first RLC entity, an indication to a PDCP entity that the original PDCP PDU was received by the receiver;
Blankenship discloses the first entity transmitting an indication to a PDCP entity, namely macro cell 110, an indication that the PDU was received. Blankenship at FIG 10 and at ¶¶170 and 174-185.
communicating via a backhaul channel, an indication to the second RLC entity to discard a duplicated PDCP PDU stored in a queuing buffer for transmission on a second link, wherein the duplicated PDCP PDU is a duplication of the original PDCP PDU; and
Blankenship discloses communicating by way of backhaul an indication to the second entity to discard a PDCP PDU stored in a buffer for transmission on the second link. Blankenship at FIG 11 and at ¶¶171 and 200-205.
removing, by the second RLC entity, the duplicated PDCP PDU from the queuing buffer.
Blankenship discloses the second entity removing the PDU from the buffer in response. Blankenship at ¶¶35 200-205.
Further as to claim 11:
The method of Claim 10, wherein the positive acknowledgement is received in a RLC status report.
Blankenship discloses that the positive ACK may be received in a RLC status report. Blankenship at ¶¶236-241.
Further as to claim 12:
The method of Claim 10, wherein the positive acknowledgment received at the first RLC entity associated with the first link is received before a positive acknowledgment is received at the second RLC entity associated with the second link.
Blankenship discloses receiving another positive acknowledgement after the first from another small cell i.e. the second entity. Blankenship at ¶¶242-243.
Further as to claim 13:
The method of Claim 10, further comprising discarding, by the second RLC entity, the duplicated PDCP PDU that was removed from the queuing buffer.
Blankenship discloses the second entity discarding the PDU. Blankenship at ¶¶35 200-205.
Further as to claim 14:
The method of Claim 10, further comprising, transmitting, by the second RLC entity and to a receiver side RLC entity associated with the second link, an indication identifying the duplicated PDCP PDU to be discarded.
Blankenship discloses the indication identifying specific PDUs to be discarded. Blankenship at ¶¶200-205.
Further as to claim 15:
The method of Claim 10, wherein the backhaul channel comprises an X2 channel.
Blankenship discloses the backhaul comprises an Xn channel, which reads an X2 channel. Blankenship further discloses an X2 connection between the entities. Blankenship at ¶¶162, 170, and 228.
Further as to claim 16:
The method of Claim 10, wherein the first link is associated with a first radio access technology and the second link is associated with a second radio access technology.
Blankenship discloses that the first and second links may be the same or different radio access technologies. Blankenship at ¶¶43-45.
As to claim 17, Blankenship discloses:
A method in a first radio link control (RLC) entity associated with a first link, the method comprising:
Blankenship discloses a method in a first RLC entity associated with a first link. Blankenship at FIG 1 and at ¶¶40-41 and 123-124, noting small cells 112 (first entity) and 114 (second entity).
receiving, from a receiver, a positive acknowledgement indicating a successful receipt of an original Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) on the first link;
Blankenship discloses at the first entity, receiving from a receiver (UE) an ACK indicating receipt of a PDCP PDU on the first link. Blankenship at ¶¶103-104, 124-125, and 215.
transmitting, to a PDCP entity, an indication that the original PDCP PDU was received by the receiver; and
Blankenship discloses the first entity transmitting an indication to a PDCP entity, namely macro cell 110, an indication that the PDU was received. Blankenship at FIG 10 and at ¶¶170 and 174-185.
communicating, via a backhaul channel, an indication for a second RLC entity to discard a duplicated PDCP PDU that is stored in a queuing buffer, wherein the duplicated PDCP PDU is stored in the queuing buffer for transmission on a second link associated with the second RLC entity, and wherein the duplicated PDCP PDU is a duplication of the original PDCP PDU.
Blankenship discloses communicating by way of backhaul an indication to the second entity to discard a PDCP PDU stored in a buffer for transmission on the second link. Blankenship at FIG 11 and at ¶¶171 and 200-205.
Blankenship also discloses the first entity communicating by way of backhaul an indication to the second entity to discard a PDCP PDU stored in a buffer for transmission on the second link. Blankenship at ¶¶30-33 and 171.
Further as to claim 18:
The method of Claim 17, wherein the positive acknowledgement is received in a RLC status report.
Blankenship discloses that the positive ACK may be received in a RLC status report. Blankenship at ¶¶236-241.
Further as to claim 19:
The method of Claim 17, wherein the positive acknowledgment is received before a positive acknowledgment is received at the second RLC entity associated with the second link.
Blankenship discloses receiving another positive acknowledgement after the first from another small cell i.e. the second entity. Blankenship at ¶¶242-243.
Further as to claim 20:
The method of Claim 17, wherein the backhaul channel comprises an X2 channel.
Blankenship discloses the backhaul comprises an Xn channel, which reads an X2 channel. Blankenship further discloses an X2 connection between the entities. Blankenship at ¶¶162, 170, and 228.
Further as to claim 21:
The method of Claim 17, wherein the first link is associated with a first radio access technology and the second link is associated with a second radio access technology.
Blankenship discloses that the first and second links may be the same or different radio access technologies. Blankenship at ¶¶43-45.
As to claim 22, Blankenship discloses:
A method in a second radio link control (RLC) entity associated with a second link, the method comprising:
Blankenship discloses a method in a second RLC entity associated with a second link. Blankenship at FIG 1 and at ¶¶40-41 and 123-124, noting small cells 112 (first entity) and 114 (second entity).
receiving, via a backhaul channel, an indication associated with a first RLC entity that an original PDCP PDU was received by a receiver on a first link associated with the first RLC entity; and
Blankenship discloses receiving by way of backhaul an indication at the second entity to discard a PDCP PDU stored in a buffer for transmission on the second link because an original PDU was received by a receiver associated with a link with a first entity. Blankenship at FIGS 10 and 11 and at ¶¶170-171, 174-185, and 200-205. This reads as indicating that the PDU was received.
removing a duplicated PDCP PDU from a queuing buffer, wherein the duplicated PDCP PDU is a duplication of the original PDCP PDU received on the first link associated with the first RLC entity.
Blankenship discloses the second entity removing the PDU from the buffer in response. Blankenship at ¶¶35 200-205.
Further as to claim 23:
The method of Claim 22, wherein the indication from the first RLC entity is based on a positive acknowledgement received from the receiver by the first RLC entity.
Blankenship discloses at the first entity, receiving from a receiver (UE) an ACK indicating receipt of a PDCP PDU on the first link. Blankenship at ¶¶103-104, 124-125, and 215.
Further as to claim 24:
The method of Claim 23, wherein the positive acknowledgement is received in a RLC status report.
Blankenship discloses that the positive ACK may be received in a RLC status report. Blankenship at ¶¶236-241.
Further as to claim 25:
The method of Claim 23, wherein the positive acknowledgment is received at the first RLC entity associated with the first link before a positive acknowledgment is received at the second RLC entity associated with the second link.
Blankenship discloses receiving another positive acknowledgement after the first from another small cell i.e. the second entity. Blankenship at ¶¶242-243.
Further as to claim 26:
The method of Claim 22, further comprising discarding the duplicated PDCP PDU that was removed from the queuing buffer.
Blankenship discloses the second entity discarding the PDU. Blankenship at ¶¶35 and 200-205.
Further as to claim 27:
The method of Claim 22, further comprising transmitting, to a receiver side RLC entity associated with the second link, an indication identifying the duplicated PDCP PDU to be discarded.
Blankenship discloses communicating by way of backhaul an indication to the second entity to discard a PDCP PDU stored in a buffer for transmission on the second link and identifying the PDU to discard. Blankenship at FIG 11 and at ¶¶171 and 200-205.
Further as to claim 28:
The method of Claim 22, wherein the backhaul channel comprises an X2 channel.
Blankenship discloses the backhaul comprises an Xn channel, which reads an X2 channel. Blankenship further discloses an X2 connection between the entities. Blankenship at ¶¶162, 170, and 228.
Further as to claim 29:
The method of Claim 22, wherein the first link is associated with a first radio access technology and the second link is associated with a second radio access technology.
Blankenship discloses that the first and second links may be the same or different radio access technologies. Blankenship at ¶¶43-45.
As to claim 30, Blankenship discloses:
A method in a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity comprising:
Blankenship discloses a method in a network. Blankenship at FIG 1 and at ¶¶40-41. The network includes a first and second RLC entity associated with a first and second link, respectively. Id. and at ¶¶123-124, noting small cells 112 (first entity) and 114 (second entity). The network also includes a PDCP entity, namely marco cell 110. Id. at ¶¶7 and 83.
receiving, from a first Radio Link Control (RLC) entity, an indication that an original PDCP PDU was received by a receiver on a first link associated with the first RLC entity;
Blankenship discloses the PDCP entity receiving from the first entity an indication to a PDCP entity, namely macro cell 110, an indication that the PDU was received over a first link. Blankenship at FIG 10 and at ¶¶170 and 174-185.
communicating, via a backhaul channel, an indication to a second RLC entity to discard a duplicated PDCP protocol data unit (PDU) stored in a queuing buffer for transmission on a second link, wherein the duplicated PDCP PDU is a duplication of the original PDCP PDU.
Blankenship discloses the PDCP entity communicating by way of backhaul an indication to the second entity to discard a PDCP PDU stored in a buffer for transmission on the second link. Blankenship at FIG 11 and at ¶¶171 and 200-205.
Further as to claim 31:
The method of Claim 30, wherein the indication from the first RLC entity is based on a positive acknowledgement received from the receiver by the first RLC entity.
Blankenship discloses at the first entity, receiving from a receiver (UE) an ACK indicating receipt of a PDCP PDU on the first link, which is the basis of the received indication at the PDCP entity. Blankenship at ¶¶103-104, 124-125, and 215.
Further as to claim 32:
The method of Claim 30, wherein the positive acknowledgement is received in a RLC status report.
Blankenship discloses that the positive ACK may be received in a RLC status report. Blankenship at ¶¶236-241.
Further as to claim 33:
The method of Claim 30, further comprising receiving, from the second RLC entity, an indication identifying that the duplicated PDCP PDU is to be discarded.
Blankenship discloses the indication identifying specific PDUs to be discarded. Blankenship at ¶¶200-205.
Further as to claim 34:
The method of Claim 30, wherein the backhaul channel comprises an X2 channel.
Blankenship discloses the backhaul comprises an Xn channel, which reads an X2 channel. Blankenship further discloses an X2 connection between the entities. Blankenship at ¶¶162, 170, and 228.
Further as to claim 35:
The method of Claim 30, wherein the first link is associated with a first radio access technology and the second link is associated with a second radio access technology.
Blankenship discloses that the first and second links may be the same or different radio access technologies. Blankenship at ¶¶43-45.
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner provides arguments with his February 19, 2026 Amendment (“Remarks”).
As to the previous rejection of claim 17 under § 112(a) (Remarks at 20-21), the Examiner withdraws the rejection (as well as the associated rejection under § 251) in response to the amendment of claim 17.
As to the rejection under § 251 of claims 10-35 (Recapture, Remarks at 21-23), the Examiner finds Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
As noted above and in the previous Office action, amendments were made adding matter to the claims that issued as claim 1. As further noted, much of the matter added to attain allowance has been removed from the instant reissue claims (c.f., new claim 10).
Patent Owner asserts that the entirety of matter added in the amendment to the claim that issued as claim 1 “together comprise the surrender generating limitation”. Remarks at 22. This is incorrect. The Examiner will not be considering a number of separate limitations disbursed throughout a claim as a single limitation as this does not comport with the basic definition of a claim limitation.
Continuing, Patent Owner argues that numerous claims comprise the surrender-generating limitation(s) added to attain allowance. Remarks at 23 as to claims 10, 22, and 30 added here. This is incorrect, as noted above; the matter added in the first two limitations of claim 1 have been removed entirely from all new independent claims as both full limitations have been entirely removed. Further matter added to claim 1, including the receiving the positive acknowledgement at the first RLC entity of a PDCP PDU, as well as the entire “transmitting an indication” limitation has been removed from claim 22. And lastly, further matter added to claim 1, including the communication via backhaul channel has been removed from claim 30.
As to the rejection under § 251 of claims 17-35 (Original Patent, Remarks at 23-26), the Examiner finds Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Patent Owner argues that the statement in the rejection that the instant Patent disclosure does not show in it an intent to claim the combination of elements of claim 17 contradicts MPEP § 1412.01, citing to In re Mead, 581 F.2d 251, 256, 198 USPQ 412, 417 (CCPA 1978). However, this is misplaced; he full quotation from Mead as to the intent to claim is "[t]hus, in Rowand and similar cases, ‘intent to claim’ has little to do with ‘intent’ per se, but rather is analogous to the requirement of § 112, first paragraph, that the specification contain ‘a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it.’") Meaning, the determination of an intent to claim a particular combination of elements is determined by what is written in the disclosure, and thus the requirement that “the specification disclose, in an explicit and unequivocal manner, the particular combinations” claimed. Antares Pharma, Inc., 771 F.3d at 1363, 112 USPQ2d at 1871. Thus the disclosure must explicitly and unequivocally show the combination claimed here, including the deliberate absence of matter deleted from the claim, as a separate invention. Id. See also Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 1352, 2019 USPQ2d 221227 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("nowhere do the written description or drawings disclose that arbors are an optional feature of the invention. Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the newly claimed, arbor-less invention would be possible, that is insufficient to comply with the standard set forth in Industrial Chemicals [315 U.S. 668 (1942)] and Antares.").
As noted by Patent Owner, the original patent describes methods and systems for removal of duplicated packets for transmission by way of a mechanism provided for removing radio link control (RLC) protocol data units (PDUs), which contained a certain Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) PDU, from the RLC buffer when the RLC PDU(s) are being transmitted or retransmitted to a receiver by one link though the PDCP PDU was received by the receiver via a second link. This mechanism is described throughout the disclosure as comprising a first and second RLC entity as well as a PDCP entity.
As to the rejection under § 102 of claims 10-35 (Remarks at 26-28), the Examiner finds Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Patent Owner argues that Blankenship fails to disclose “communicating, via a backhaul channel, an indication to the second RLC entity to discard the PDCP PDU or segment of the PDCP PDU” as claimed in independent claims 10, 17, and 22. The Examiner notes that Blankenship, as cited in the Office action (as well as repeated above), discloses communicating by way of backhaul an indication to the second entity to discard a PDCP PDU stored in a buffer for transmission on the second link. Blankenship at FIG 11 and at ¶¶171 and 200-205. FIG 11 of Blankenship is shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
172
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note “PDCP discard indication” 1120 communicated from the Macro eNB 1110 to the Small Cell eNB 1130. Cited ¶171 of Blankenship discloses that this indication is sent “using the control interface 982 from FIG. 9”. FIG 9 specifies that interface 982 is a Xn-C backhaul and that the PDCP PDU to be discarded is the same PDU that was found to have been successfully received. Id. at ¶169 describing FIG 9 describing the discard over interface 982 cited in ¶171 (“when confirmation of successful delivery of the PDCP SDU is received using a PDCP status report sent from the small cell eNB, the macro eNB 910 may discard the PDCP SDU with the corresponding PDCP PDU”). See also id. at ¶¶103-104 as to “duplicate discarding”. Clearly Blankenship discloses that the discarded PDU is a duplicate as claimed, defined as “a duplication of the original PDCP PDU”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. 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.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights