DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 7/13/2026. Claim 1-20 are currently 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
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 have been amended to now require a limitation stating “wherein the transmission timing information for the first PDU set comprises synchronization expiration information for the first PDU set and a second PDU set associated with a multi-modal application”. Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art does not disclose this amended limitation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant’s arguments mention previously cited Sarathchandra et al. (U.S. Publication US 2026/0032532 A1), but merely state that this prior art “was cited in connection with other subject matter”. The Examiner disagrees with this interpretation of the citations of Sarathchandra et al. For example, Sarathchandra et al. was cited in the Non-Final rejection as teaching a multi-modal synchronization threshold that is the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission or reception of two flows that may be PDU sets (See paragraph 76 of Sarathchandra et al.), wherein threshold multi-modal synchronization and/or correlation information, e.g. multi-modal session correlation information is indicated in response to a handover (See paragraph 130 of Sarathchandra et al.). The multi-modal synchronization threshold of Sarathchandra et al. is equivalent to the claimed synchronization expiration information. Thus, Sarathchandra et al. does teach an equivalent of the amended claim limitation, and rejections based on the teachings of the previously cited prior art are maintained. Please see the rejections below for further detail.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2025/0056359 A1) in view of Sarathchandra et al. (U.S. Publication US 2026/0032532 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 20, Wang et al. discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a source network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to cause the source network entity to perform a method of wireless communication (See paragraph 187, paragraphs 495-500, and Figures 6 and 13 of Wang et al. for reference to a first node, which is a source base station serving a UE, comprising a memory coupled to a controller including one or more processing units executing software stored in the memory to cause the source base station to perform a wireless communication method). Wang et al. also discloses communicating, with a user equipment (UE), a first portion of a first protocol data unit (PDU) set (See paragraphs 187-191 and Figure 6 of Wang et al. for reference to the source base station having ongoing PDU sessions with the UE, wherein the PDU sessions include a PDU set, such that a first portion of the PDU set is communicated from the source base station to the UE). Wang et al. also discloses providing, for a target network entity, transmission timing information corresponding to a remaining portion of the first PDU set, wherein the transmission timing information is based on a switch time for a handover to the target network entity (See paragraph 101, and paragraphs 189-191 of Wang et al. for reference to the source base station transmitting a handover request message to a second node, which is a destination, i.e. target, base station, wherein the handover request includes an identification of a PDU set and a PSDB, which is an upper limit of a delay that the PDU set may experience that is a duration between the reception time of the first PDU and the time when all PDUs of the set have been successfully received). Wang et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the transmission timing information for the first PDU set comprises synchronization expiration information for the first PDU set and a second PDU set associated with a multi-modal application. However, Sarathchandra et al., in the field of communications, discloses a multi-modal synchronization threshold that is the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission or reception of two flows that may be PDU sets (See paragraph 76 of Sarathchandra et al. for reference to the multi-modal synchronization threshold that is equivalent to the claimed synchronization expiration information), wherein threshold multi-modal synchronization and/or correlation information, e.g. multi-modal session correlation information is indicated in response to a handover (See paragraph 130 of Sarathchandra et al.). Indicating a multi-modal synchronization threshold between two PDU sets during a handover has the advantage of ensuring that the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission of the PDU sets is maintained during the handover. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Sarathchandra et al., to combine indicating a multi-modal synchronization threshold between two PDU sets during a handover, as suggested by Sarathchandra et al., within the system and method of Wang et al., with the motivation being to ensure that the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission of the PDU sets is maintained during the handover.
With respect to claim 2, Wang et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (See paragraphs 495-496 and Figure 13 of Wang et al. for reference to a transceiver coupled to the controller including the one or more processing units). Wang et al. also discloses wherein to communicate the first portion of the first PDU set, the at least one processor is configured to cause the source network entity to communicate the first portion of the first PDU set via the transceiver (See paragraphs 187-191 and Figure 6 of Wang et al. for reference to the source base station having ongoing PDU sessions with the UE, wherein the PDU sessions include a PDU set, such that a first portion of the PDU set is communicated from the source base station to the UE). Wang et al. further discloses wherein the handover to the target network entity includes one or more of: an unconditional handover to the target network entity, a conditional handover to the target network entity, or a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) for the target network entity (See paragraph 207 of Wang et al. for reference to an embodiment wherein the handover is a conditional handover to the destination base station).
With respect to claim 11, Wang et al. discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the source network entity to: provide, for the target network entity, the remaining portion of the first PDU set with the transmission timing information (See paragraph 205 of Wang et al. for reference to the source base station transmitting the data to be forwarded, i.e. the PDU set, to the data forwarding address of the destination base station).
With respect to claim 12, Wang et al. discloses wherein to provide the transmission timing information, the at least one processor is configured to cause the source network entity to: provide, by a distributed unit (DU) of the source network entity, the transmission timing information to a central unit – user plane (CU-UP) (See paragraphs 190-191, paragraph 201, and Figure 6 of Wang et al. for reference to a gNB-DU providing the handover information to a gNB-CU-UP, wherein the information includes the PSDB). Wang et al. also discloses providing, by the CU-UP, the transmission timing information to the DU of the target network entity (See paragraphs 190-191, paragraph 201, and Figure 6 of Wang et al. for reference to the source gNB-CU-UP providing the handover information including the PSDB to the destination gNB-DU).
With respect to claim 13, Wang et al. discloses wherein to provide the transmission timing information to the CU-UP, the at least one processor is configured to cause the source network entity to: provide the transmission timing information to the CU-UP via a UP message, and wherein to provide the transmission timing information to the DU of the target network entity, the at least one processor is configured to cause the source network entity to: provide the transmission timing information to the DU of the target network entity through a general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling protocol (GTP) user plane (GTP-U) header of the first PDU set (See paragraphs 190-191, paragraph 201, paragraph 205, and Figure 6 of Wang et al. for reference to handover request information including the PSDB being provided to the source gNB-CU-UP, such that it is provided via a UP message, and for reference to the handover information including the PSDB being provided to the destination gNB-DU via a GTP header of the forwarded PDU data set).
With respect to claim 14, Wang et al. discloses wherein to provide the transmission timing information, the at least one processor is configured to cause the source network entity to: provide, by a central unit – user plane (CU-UP) of the source network entity, the transmission timing information to the CU-UP of the target network entity through a general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling protocol (GTP) user plane (GTP-U) header of the first PDU set (See paragraphs 190-191, paragraph 205, and Figure 6 of Wang et al. for reference to the handover information including the PSDB being provided by the source gNB-CU-UP to the destination gNB-CU-UP via a GTP header of the forwarded PDU data set).
With respect to claim 15, Wang et al. discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a target network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the target network entity to perform a method of wireless communication (See paragraph 187, paragraphs 495-500, and Figures 6 and 13 of Wang et al. for reference to a second node, which is a destination, i.e. target, base station of a handover process for a UE, comprising a memory coupled to a controller including one or more processing units executing software stored in the memory to cause the destination base station to perform a wireless communication method). Wang et al. also discloses receiving, from a source network entity, an indication of transmission timing information related to a transmission of a first protocol data unit (PDU) set with a user equipment (UE), wherein the transmission timing information is based on a switch time for a handover from the source network entity (See paragraph 101, and paragraphs 189-191 of Wang et al. for reference to the source base station transmitting a handover request message to a second node, which is a destination, i.e. target, base station, wherein the handover request includes an identification of a PDU set and a PSDB, which is an upper limit of a delay that the PDU set may experience that is a duration between the reception time of the first PDU and the time when all PDUs of the set have been successfully received). Wang et al. further discloses communicating, based on the transmission timing information, at least a portion of the first PDU set with the UE (See paragraphs 234-236 and Figure 6 of Wang et al. for reference to the UE switching to communicate via the destination gNB to preform communication of the remaining portion of the PDU data set). Wang et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the transmission timing information for the first PDU set comprises synchronization expiration information for the first PDU set and a second PDU set associated with a multi-modal application. However, Sarathchandra et al., in the field of communications, discloses a multi-modal synchronization threshold that is the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission or reception of two flows that may be PDU sets (See paragraph 76 of Sarathchandra et al. for reference to the multi-modal synchronization threshold that is equivalent to the claimed synchronization expiration information), wherein threshold multi-modal synchronization and/or correlation information, e.g. multi-modal session correlation information is indicated in response to a handover (See paragraph 130 of Sarathchandra et al.). Indicating a multi-modal synchronization threshold between two PDU sets during a handover has the advantage of ensuring that the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission of the PDU sets is maintained during the handover. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Sarathchandra et al., to combine indicating a multi-modal synchronization threshold between two PDU sets during a handover, as suggested by Sarathchandra et al., within the system and method of Wang et al., with the motivation being to ensure that the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission of the PDU sets is maintained during the handover.
With respect to claim 16, the apparatus of claim 15, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (See paragraphs 495-496 and Figure 13 of Wang et al. for reference to a transceiver coupled to the controller including the one or more processing units). Wang et al. also discloses wherein to receive the indication of the transmission timing information, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the target network entity to receive the indication of the transmission timing information via the transceiver (See paragraph 101, paragraphs 189-191, and Figure 6 of Wang et al. for reference to destination base station receiving the handover information including the PSDB from the source base station). Wang et al. further discloses wherein the handover to the target network entity includes one or more of: an unconditional handover to the target network entity, a conditional handover to the target network entity, or a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) for the target network entity (See paragraph 207 of Wang et al. for reference to an embodiment wherein the handover is a conditional handover to the destination base station).
Claims 3-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Sarathchandra et al., and in further view of Malik et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0121663 A1).
With respect to claim 3, although Wang et al. does disclose the timing information for the first PDU set comprising a PSDB (See paragraph 101 and paragraph 189-191 for reference to the handover request containing information including an identification of a PDU set and a PSDB), and although, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Sarathchandra et al. renders obvious a multi-modal application with flows associated with multiple PDU sets (See paragraph 76 of Sarathchandra et al.), Wang et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the transmission timing information for the first PDU set further comprises PDU set delay budget (PSDB) expiration information for the first PDU set.
With respect to claim 17, although Wang et al. does disclose the timing information for the first PDU set comprising a PSDB (See paragraph 101 and paragraph 189-191 for reference to the handover request containing information including an identification of a PDU set and a PSDB), and although, as shown above in the rejection of claim 15, Sarathchandra et al. renders obvious a multi-modal application with flows associated with multiple PDU sets (See paragraph 76 of Sarathchandra et al.), Wang et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the transmission timing information for the first PDU set further comprises PDU set delay budget (PSDB) expiration information for the first PDU set.
With further respect to claim 3 and 17, Malik et al., in the field of communications, discloses a handover procedure from a source NG-RAN node to a target NG-RAN node including transmission of buffer status reporting, BSR, information (See paragraphs 174-176 of Malik et al.), wherein a BSR may include latency information such as the remaining time in the delay budget expiration of a PDU set (See paragraphs 96-97 of Malik et al.). Reporting the remaining time in the delay budget expiration of a PDU set has the advantage of helping in scenarios where a PDU set is transmitted over multiple bursts, such that the remaining bursts of the PDU set may be scheduled for transmission before expiration of the PSDB. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Malik et al., to combine reporting the remaining time in the delay budget expiration of a PDU set, as suggested by Malik et al., within the system and method of Wang et al., with the motivation being to allow the remaining bursts of the PDU set to be scheduled for transmission before expiration of the PSDB.
With respect to claims 4 and 18, as shown above in the rejection of claims 3 and 17, Malik et al. renders obvious wherein the transmission timing information for the first PDU set comprises the PSDB expiration information for the first PDU set, and the PSDB expiration information comprises one or more of: a remaining time until an expiration of a PSDB for the first PDU set, or an absolute time at the expiration of the PSDB for the first PDU set (See paragraphs 96-97 of Malik et al. for reference to a BSR including latency information such as the remaining time in the delay budget expiration of a PDU set). Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 3 and 17.
With respect to claim 5, as shown above in the rejection of claim 3, Malik et al. renders obvious determining the PSDB expiration information based on the switch time and the PSDB for the first PDU set (See paragraphs 96-97 and paragraphs 174-176 of Malik et al. for reference to determining the remaining time in the delay budget expiration of a PDU set in a scenario including a handover from a source NG-RAN to a target NG-RAN according to the switch time between multiple bursts of transmitting the PDU set). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 3.
With respect to claim 6, this claim depends on the limitations of claim 4 stating “the PSDB expiration information comprises one or more of: a remaining time until an expiration of a PSDB for the first PDU set, or an absolute time at the expiration of the PSDB for the first PDU set”. This limitation is written in the alternative with two claimed alternative choices. As shown above in the rejection of claim 4, Malik et al. renders obvious the first claimed alternative of “a remaining time until an expiration of a PSDB for the first PDU set”. The language of claim 6 further limits the second claimed option of claim 4. Since this second claimed option is an alternative option and not required, and since Malik et al. is already shown to render obvious a different alternative option, claim 6 is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 4.
With respect to claim 7, as shown above in the rejection of claim 3, Malik et al. renders obvious wherein the PSDB expiration information includes a first designated value indicating the expiration of the PSDB (See paragraphs 96-97 and paragraphs 174-176 of Malik et al. for reference to determining and indicating the remaining time in the delay budget expiration of a PDU set, which is a first designated value indicating the expiration of the PSDB). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 3.
With respect to claim 8, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Sarathchandra et al. renders obvious wherein the synchronization expiration information comprises one or more of: a remaining time until an expiration of a synchronization threshold between the first PDU set and the second PDU set, or an absolute time at the expiration of the synchronization threshold (See paragraph 76 of Sarathchandra et al. for reference to the multi-modal synchronization threshold that is equivalent to the claimed synchronization expiration information, wherein the threshold indicates the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission or reception of two flows that may be PDU sets, which is a remaining time of the expiration of a synchronization threshold). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, as shown above in the rejection of claim 8, Sarathchandra et al. renders obvious wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the source network entity to: determine the synchronization expiration information based on the switch time and a delivery time of one of the first PDU set and the second PDU set (See paragraph 76 and paragraph 130 of Sarathchandra et al. for reference to the threshold multi-modal synchronization and/or correlation information, e.g. multi-modal session correlation information is indicated in response to a handover where the threshold is the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission or reception of two flows that may be PDU sets). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 8.
With respect to claim 10, this claim depends on the limitations of claim 8 stating “the synchronization expiration information comprises one or more of: a remaining time until an expiration of a synchronization threshold between the first PDU set and the second PDU set, or an absolute time at the expiration of the synchronization threshold”. This limitation is written in the alternative with two claimed alternative choices. As shown above in the rejection of claim 8, Sarathchandra et al. renders obvious the first claimed alternative of “a remaining time until an expiration of a synchronization threshold between the first PDU set and the second PDU set”. The language of claim 10 further limits the second claimed option of claim 8. Since this second claimed option is an alternative option and not required, and since Sarathchandra et al. is already shown to render obvious a different alternative option, claim 10 is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 8.
With respect to claim 19, as shown above in the rejection of claim 15, Sarathchandra et al. renders obvious wherein the synchronization expiration information comprises one or more of: a remaining time until an expiration of a synchronization threshold between the first PDU set and the second PDU set, or an absolute time at the expiration of the synchronization threshold (See paragraph 76 of Sarathchandra et al. for reference to the multi-modal synchronization threshold that is equivalent to the claimed synchronization expiration information, wherein the threshold indicates the maximum tolerable temporal separation between transmission or reception of two flows that may be PDU sets, which is a remaining time of the expiration of a synchronization threshold). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 15.
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 Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights