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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filled on 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-11,13-15 are amended.
Claims 6,12, 20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed on 06/25/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new ground of rejection(s).
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. I. Chen Does Not Teach Lossless MBS Transmission As amended, independent Claim 1 expressly recites a communication method "for lossless Multicast Broadcast Service (MBS) transmission." Chen is directed throughout to CN-split tunnel switching handover procedures for unicast PDU sessions. Neither the specification nor the claims of Chen disclose MBS transmission. Indeed, the terms "MBS," "MRB," "multicast," and "broadcast" do not appear in Chen.” Examiner agrees that unicast and multicast are two distinct communication sessions; however, the body of the claim only deals with mapping information and how the mapping information being exchanged. Therefore; regardless of the preamble of the claim 1, Chen teaches the recited limitations “mapping a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User data (GTP-U) sequence number (SN) with a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) SN, and mapping one or more Quality of Service (QoS) flow identifiers (IDs) associated with the GTP-U data units to one or more data radio bearer (DRB) IDs to establish combined mapping information; and transmitting the combined mapping information to a target base station that the handover is directed to.”
Further, applicant argues that “II. Chen Does Not Teach the Claimed "Combined Mapping Information" The core inventive concept of the present application is the establishment of "combined mapping information," which combines two different categories of mapping
information into a single information structure.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, claim 1 recites “…to establish combined mapping information.” Applicant is reminded that claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the limitation “mapping a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User data (GTP-U) sequence number (SN) with a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) SN, and mapping one or more Quality of Service (QoS) flow identifiers (IDs) associated with the GTP-U data units to one or more data radio bearer (DRB) IDs to establish combined mapping information” does not necessary mean generating a single information structure by combining two different categories of mapping
information.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,7-9,11,13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen to (WO 2021/081785 A1) from IDS in view of Xu to (US 20210377818 A1)
Regarding claims 1,7,13 Chen teaches mapping a GTP-U SN with a PDCP SN (see page 9, operation 610, target base station ID, Packet Data
Convergence Protocol (PDCP) SNdl-2 (which indicates the downlink PDCP sequence number), and/or the mapping between PDCP and GTP-U tunnel (which indicates the correspondence between the PDCP sequence number and the GTP-U sequence number for the handover)), and mapping one or more QoS flow IDs associated with the GTP-U data units to one more MRB/DRB ID to establish combined mapping information (see page 8, operation 606, the information can indicate that a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User data (GTP-U) tunnel has a one-to-one correspondence with the QoS flow of the PDU session. In addition, the QoS flow also has a one-to-one correspondence with a DRB) and transmitting the combined mapping information to a target base station that the handover is directed to (see page 9, operation 610, taking into account that the PDU session contains the mapping between the QoS flow and the DRB)
Chen does not explicitly teach transmitting the combined mapping information via XnAp, Xn-C or Xn-U interface
Xu teaches transmitting the combined mapping information via XnAp, Xn-C or Xn-U interface ([0357] discloses central unit control plane entity of the target base station receives a handover request message from the source base station or the core network. The handover request message received from the source base station is an application layer message over interface between base stations, such as a XnAP message. The handover request message received from the core network is an application layer message of the interface between the base station and the core network, such as an NGAP message. The handover request message includes a configuration information of the UE at the source base station, and the configuration information includes a DRB configuration information and/or a QoS flow to DRB mapping information)
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of Chen to include transmitting the combined mapping information via XnAp, Xn-C or Xn-U interface, as suggested by Xu.This modification would benefit the system to establish a reliable communication.
Regarding claims 2, 8, Chen teaches wherein mapping each GTP-U SN with a PDCP SN, and mapping one or more QoS flow ID associated with the GTP-U data units to one more MRB/DRB ID to establish combined mapping information includes: mapping the GTP-U SN within the GTP-U data unit to a PDCP SN and mapping the one or more QoS flow ID associated with a same GTP-U data unit to a same MRB/DRB ID(page 9, operation 610, which discloses the
mapping between the PDCP SN and the GTP-U SN. Furthermore, the handover procedure includes the PDU session ID, which-according to page 6, lines 2-10 -provides the mapping between QoS flows and DRBs. Additionally, page 7, lines 22-26 explicitly state that this mapping can be a one-to-one correspondence. See also operation 606 in page 8).
Regarding claims 3,9 Chen teaches wherein mapping each GTP-U SN with a PDCP SN, and mapping one or more QoS flow ID associated with the GTP-U data units to one more MRB/DRB ID to establish combined mapping information includes: mapping the GTP-U SN within the GTP-U data unit to a PDCP SN and mapping QoS flow IDs associated with different GTP-U data units to a same MRB/DRB ID(see page 8, operation 606, the information can indicate that a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User data (GTP-U) tunnel has a one-to-one correspondence with the QoS flow of the PDU session. In addition, the QoS flow also has a one-to-one correspondence with a DRB).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches further comprising receiving a report from a UE about loss of one or more PDCP data units during handover; and transmitting reported the one or more reported lost PDCP data units to the UE(page 5, Operation 204: The UE has failed to receive acknowledgements for a portion of the data due to the handover. The UE now retransmits that portion to the target base station. Operation 205: The target base station can start to send the buffered DL data to the UE)
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches receiving GTP-U data units from CN after the handover, wherein each of the GTP-U data units at least including a GTP-U SN and one or more associated QoS flow IDs of an MBS session; (page 13, Operation 717: The source base station receives downlink data from UPF with sequence number SNdl. The source base station also receives an indication of start of redundant transmission, indicating that UPF transmits downlink data to both the source and target base stations at the same time. The target base station receives downlink data from the UPF. The target base station can determine PDCP SNdl based on the mapping of PDCP and GTP-U and start to buffer data) and mapping each GTP-U SN received after the handover with a PDCP SN, and mapping one or more QoS flow ID associated with the GTP-U data units to one more MRB/DRB ID to supplement the combined mapping information( see page 8, operation 606, the information can indicate that a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User data (GTP-U) tunnel has a one-to-one correspondence with the QoS flow of the PDU session. In addition, the QoS flow also has a one-to-one correspondence with a DRB).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches wherein the QoS flow IDs associated with a same GTP-U data unit are mapped to a same MRB/DRB ID(see page 8, operation 606, the information can indicate that a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User data (GTP-U) tunnel has a one-to-one correspondence with the QoS flow of the PDU session. In addition, the QoS flow also has a one-to-one correspondence with a DRB).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches wherein the QoS flow IDs associated with different GTP-U data units are mapped to a same MRB/DRB ID(see page 8, operation 606, the information can indicate that a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User data (GTP-U) tunnel has a one-to-one correspondence with the QoS flow of the PDU session. In addition, the QoS flow also has a one-to-one correspondence with a DRB).
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches wherein different QoS flow ID associated with a same GTP-U data unit are mapped to different MRB/DRB IDs respectively(see page 8, operation 606, the information can indicate that a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol User data (GTP-U) tunnel has a one-to-one correspondence with the QoS flow of the PDU session. In addition, the QoS flow also has a one-to-one correspondence with a DRB).
Regarding claims 5,19 Chen teaches wherein the mapped-to part of the combined mapping information is transmitted to UEs via Uu interface(see fig.8,page.8, Operation 603: The source base station transmits an Xn setup request to the target base station (or, alternatively, the target base station can transmit an Xn setup request to the source base station). The Xn setup request includes an indicator indicating whether a Core- Network (CN) split function is supported by either the source base station or the target base station. Operation 604: The target base station transmits an Xn setup response to the base station (or, alternatively, the source base station transmits an Xn setup response to the target base) .
Claim(s) 4,10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen to (WO 2021/081785 A1) from IDS in view of Xu to (US 20210377818 A1) further in view of VIVO: "Service continuity for NR MBS"
Regarding claims 4,10, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein mapping each GTP-U SN with a PDCP SN, and mapping one or more QoS flow ID associated with the GTP-U data unit to one more MRB/DRB ID to establish combined mapping information includes: mapping the GTP-U SN within the GTP-U data unit to a PDCP SN and mapping different QoS flow IDs associated with a same GTP-U data unit to different MRB/DRB IDs respectively
However, "Service continuity for NR MBS" teaches wherein mapping each GTP-U SN with a PDCP SN, and mapping one or more QoS flow ID associated with the GTP-U data unit to one more MRB/DRB ID to establish combined mapping information includes: mapping the GTP-U SN within the GTP-U data unit to a PDCP SN and mapping different QoS flow IDs associated with a same GTP-U data unit to different MRB/DRB IDs respectively (page 6, observation 2 and the paragraph between observations 2 and 3 )
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of Chen to include wherein mapping each GTP-U SN with a PDCP SN, and mapping one or more QoS flow ID associated with the GTP-U data unit to one more MRB/DRB ID to establish combined mapping information includes: mapping the GTP-U SN within the GTP-U data unit to a PDCP SN and mapping different QoS flow IDs associated with a same GTP-U data unit to different MRB/DRB IDs respectively, as suggested by "Service continuity for NR MBS." This modification would benefit the system to establish reliable communication.
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 ZEWDU A BEYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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 D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ZEWDU A BEYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights