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 .
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10 and 13 have been amended.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18644011 in view of Yang et al. (US20250168260).
Application no 18644007
Application no 18644011
Claim 1: A method by a terminal, the method comprising: receiving, by the terminal from a base station, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message, wherein the RRC message comprises a set of Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) parameters for
establishing, by the terminal, the DRB based on the set of PDCP parameters;
and transmitting, by the terminal to the base station, a PDCP discard report in case that the set of PDCP parameters for the DRB comprises a parameter related to the PDCP discard report, wherein the PDCP discard report comprises a first field related to a COUNT of a first discarded SDU.
1. A method by a terminal, the method comprising: receiving, by the terminal from a base station, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message, wherein the RRC message comprises a set of parameters for Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP);
establishing, by the terminal, a PDCP entity based on the set of parameters for PDCP; receiving, by the terminal from the base station, a PDCP discard report;
delivering, by the terminal from a PDCP entity to an upper layer, a first set of PDCP Service Data Units (SDUs) based on the PDCP discard report;
updating, by the terminal, a first state variable; and starting, by the terminal based on the PDCP discard report, a reordering timer in case that the first state variable is smaller than a second state variable, wherein the first state variable indicates COUNT value of a first PDCP SDU not delivered from the PDCP entity to the upper layer, wherein the second state variable indicates COUNT value of next PDCP SDU expected to be received, wherein a second set of PDCP SDUs are delivered from the PDCP entity to the upper layer in case that the reordering timer expires.
Regarding claim 1 of Application 18644007 limitation “starting, by the terminal, a discard timer for a Service Data Unit (SDU) of the DRB;
discarding, by the terminal, one or more SDUs of the DRB upon expiry of the discard timer; “
is not taught by Application no 18644011.
Yang teaches starting, by the terminal, a discard timer for a Service Data Unit (SDU) of the DRB;
discarding, by the terminal, one or more SDUs of the DRB upon expiry of the discard timer (([0108] “Upon receiving each of the one or more PDCP SDUs, the PDCP entity may start a discard timer associated with the each of the one or more PDCP SDUs, respectively”. [0109] “For yet another example, the PDCP entity may determine to abandon the transmission of the one or more PDCP PDUs in response to determining that the one or more PDCP PDUs belong to a same PDU set and a discard timer associated with one of the one or more PDCP SDUs has expired”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Application no 18644011 to incorporate the teachings of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve QOS handling for packets.
Claim 2-13 are rejected similarly above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US20140254393) in view of Yang (US20250168260).
Regarding claim 1, Yi teaches A method by a terminal, the method comprising:
receiving, by the terminal from a base station, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message ([0036] “A radio resource control (RRC) layer is defined only in the control plane. The RRC layer serves to control the logical channel, the transport channel, and the physical channel in association with configuration, reconfiguration and release of radio bearers (RBs). An RB is a logical path provided by the first layer (i.e., the PHY layer) and the second layer (i.e., the MAC layer, the RLC layer, and the PDCP layer) for data delivery between the UE”, [0069] “A BS can request the UE to send the PDCP status report. The request message may be transmitted as PDCP control PDU or a RRC message. The request message may include at least one of information on when the UE sends the PDCP status report, information on when the UE stops to send the PDCP status report and information on how many PDCP status reports are transmitted”),
wherein the RRC message comprises a set of Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) parameters for a Data Radio Bearer (DRB) (([0062] “a UE sets up a RB mapped on RLC UM and receives a PDCP configuration on the RLC UM. The PDCP configuration enables the UE to report a PDCP status”, [0079] “a UE received from a BS a PDCP status about PDCP SUD(s) which the BS is not correctly received”, , [0069] “A BS can request the UE to send the PDCP status report. The request message may be transmitted as PDCP control PDU or a RRC message. The request message may include at least one of information on when the UE sends the PDCP status report, information on when the UE stops to send the PDCP status report and information on how many PDCP status reports are transmitted”, (at least one of information ==PDCP parameters”));
establishing, by the terminal, the DRB based on the set of PDCP parameters ([0046] “The PDCP Control PDU may be a data block carrying the control information and may be generated at DRB. The PDCP Control PDU includes a PDCP Status PDU and header compression control information”);
([0085] “The UE may discard PDCP SDUs if a discard timer expires before the corresponding PDCP SDU is transmitted”);
discarding, by the terminal, one or more SDUs of the DRB upon expiry of the discard timer ([0085] “The UE may discard PDCP SDUs if a discard timer expires before the corresponding PDCP SDU is transmitted. Then, the UE calculates the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs. The total size of discarded PDCP SDUs may be sent to the BS as the PDCP status report);
and transmitting, by the terminal to the base station, a PDCP discard report in case that the set of PDCP parameters for the DRB comprises a parameter related to the PDCP discard report ([0085] “The total size of discarded PDCP SDUs may be sent to the BS as the PDCP status report. After sending the total size of discarded PDCP SDUs, the UE resets it to zero and sums up again until it is transmitted “),
wherein the PDCP discard report comprises a first field related to a COUNT of a first discarded SDU ([0086] “The PDCP status report for uplink RB may include at least one of information on the total size of the missing PDCP SDUs, information on the total size of the transmitting PDCP SDUs and information on the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs”, (total size ==count)).
Yi does not teach starting, by the terminal, a discard timer.
Yang teaches starting, by the terminal, a discard timer ([0108] “Upon receiving each of the one or more PDCP SDUs, the PDCP entity may start a discard timer associated with the each of the one or more PDCP SDUs, respectively”, (Examiner’s Note: in provision of YANG [0024]..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yi to incorporate the teachings of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve QOS handling for packets.
Regarding claim 13, Yi teaches A terminal comprising: a transceiver, a memory, and a controller coupled to the transceiver and the memory, wherein the controller is configured to cause the terminal ([0092] “ A wireless device 60 includes a processor 61, a memory 62, and an RF unit 63. The memory 62 is coupled to the processor 61, and stores a variety of information for driving the processor 61. The RF unit 63 is coupled to the processor 61, and transmits and/or receives a radio signal”) to:
receive, from a base station, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message ([0036] “A radio resource control (RRC) layer is defined only in the control plane. The RRC layer serves to control the logical channel, the transport channel, and the physical channel in association with configuration, reconfiguration and release of radio bearers (RBs). An RB is a logical path provided by the first layer (i.e., the PHY layer) and the second layer (i.e., the MAC layer, the RLC layer, and the PDCP layer) for data delivery between the UE”, [0069] “A BS can request the UE to send the PDCP status report. The request message may be transmitted as PDCP control PDU or a RRC message. The request message may include at least one of information on when the UE sends the PDCP status report, information on when the UE stops to send the PDCP status report and information on how many PDCP status reports are transmitted”, (at least one of information ==PDCP parameters”),
wherein the RRC message comprises a set of Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) parameters for a Data Radio Bearer (DRB) (([0062] “a UE sets up a RB mapped on RLC UM and receives a PDCP configuration on the RLC UM. The PDCP configuration enables the UE to report a PDCP status”, [0079] “a UE received from a BS a PDCP status about PDCP SUD(s) which the BS is not correctly received”, (, [0069] “A BS can request the UE to send the PDCP status report. The request message may be transmitted as PDCP control PDU or a RRC message. The request message may include at least one of information on when the UE sends the PDCP status report, information on when the UE stops to send the PDCP status report and information on how many PDCP status reports are transmitted”, (at least one of information ==PDCP parameters”)
establish the DRB based on the set of PDCP parameters ([0046] “The PDCP Control PDU may be a data block carrying the control information and may be generated at DRB. The PDCP Control PDU includes a PDCP Status PDU and header compression control information”),
([0085] “The UE may discard PDCP SDUs if a discard timer expires before the corresponding PDCP SDU is transmitted”),
discard one or more SDUs of the DRB upon expiry of the discard timer ([0085] “The UE may discard PDCP SDUs if a discard timer expires before the corresponding PDCP SDU is transmitted. Then, the UE calculates the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs. The total size of discarded PDCP SDUs may be sent to the BS as the PDCP status report),
and transmit, to the base station, a PDCP discard report in case that the set of PDCP parameters for the DRB comprises a parameter related to the PDCP discard report ([0085] “The total size of discarded PDCP SDUs may be sent to the BS as the PDCP status report. After sending the total size of discarded PDCP SDUs, the UE resets it to zero and sums up again until it is transmitted “),
wherein the PDCP discard report comprises a first field related to a COUNT of a first discarded SDU ([0086] “The PDCP status report for uplink RB may include at least one of information on the total size of the missing PDCP SDUs, information on the total size of the transmitting PDCP SDUs and information on the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs”, (total size ==count)).
Yi does not teach start a discard timer.
Yang teaches start a discard timer ([0108] “Upon receiving each of the one or more PDCP SDUs, the PDCP entity may start a discard timer associated with the each of the one or more PDCP SDUs, respectively”, (Examiner’s Note: in provision of YANG [0024].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yi to incorporate the teachings of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve QOS handling for packets.
Regarding claim 2, Yi teaches further comprising: transmitting, by the terminal to the base station, a PDCP status report in case that the set of PDCP parameters for the DRB comprises a parameter related to the PDCP status report ([0063) “ a UE transmits a PDCP status report for the RB to a BS according to the PDCP configuration. The network can calculates the missing PDCP SDU(s) and the successful PDCP SDU(s) based on the PDCP status report and then can calculate the throughput and an error rate. The throughput may be calculated as a sum of bytes of all successful PDCP SDU(s) over a reporting duration. The error rate may be calculated as a sum of bytes of all missing PDCP SDU(s) over a reporting duration”).
Regarding claim 3, Yi teaches wherein the first field of the PDCP discard report indicates a specific COUNT ([0086] “The PDCP status report for uplink RB may include at least one of information on the total size of the missing PDCP SDUs, information on the total size of the transmitting PDCP SDUs and information on the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs”, (total size ==count)).
Regarding claim 4, Yi does not teach wherein the specific COUNT is a lowest COUNT of SDUs that are discarded due to expiry of the discard timer.
Yang teaches wherein the specific COUNT is a lowest COUNT of SDUs that are discarded due to expiry of the discard timer ([0023] “the COUNT information may indicate a first discarded COUNT (FDC) value. The FDC value may be a smallest COUNT value among the one or more discarded COUNT values”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yi to incorporate the teachings of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve QOS handling for packets.
Regarding claim 5, Yi does not teach wherein the first field of the PDCP discard report indicates a highest COUNT of SDUs that are discarded.
Yang teaches wherein the first field of the PDCP discard report indicates a highest COUNT of SDUs that are discarded ([0009] “In some embodiments, the COUNT information may indicate a last discarded COUNT (LDC) value. The LDC value may be a largest COUNT value among the one or more discarded COUNT values”).
Regarding claim 6, Yi teaches wherein the PDCP discard report further comprises a second field ([0086] “The PDCP status report for uplink RB may include at least one of information on the total size of the missing PDCP SDUs, information on the total size of the transmitting PDCP SDUs and information on the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs”).
Regarding claim 7, Yi teaches wherein the second field indicates one or more discarded SDUs other than the first discarded SDU ([0086] “The PDCP status report for uplink RB may include at least one of information on the total size of the missing PDCP SDUs, information on the total size of the transmitting PDCP SDUs and information on the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs”).
Regarding claim 8, Yi teaches wherein the set of PDCP parameters further comprises: a parameter related to discard timer ([0051] “A First Missing Sequence number (FMS) field 530 indicated a Sequence Number (SN) of a first missing PDCP SDU); a parameter related to uplink PDCP Sequence Number Size ([0051] “A First Missing Sequence number (FMS) field 530 indicated a Sequence Number (SN) of a first missing PDCP SDU “ a UE may calculate an amount of PDCP SDU which is successfully received from a BS); and a parameter related to downlink PDCP Sequence Number Size ([0055] “ a UE may calculate an amount of PDCP SDU which is successfully received from a BS. For uplink QoS verification, a UE may calculate an amount of PDCP SDU which is successfully transmitted to a BS”);
Regarding claim 9, Yi teaches wherein the parameter related to the PDCP discard report indicates that the PDCP discard report is configured to be sent in uplink upon expiry of the discard timer ([0085] “The UE may discard PDCP SDUs if a discard timer expires before the corresponding PDCP SDU is transmitted. Then, the UE calculates the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs. The total size of discarded PDCP SDUs may be sent to the BS as the PDCP status report).
Regarding claim 10, Yi teaches wherein the parameter related to the PDCP status report indicates that the DRB is configured to send a PDCP status report in uplink ([0046] “The PDCP Control PDU may be a data block carrying the control information and may be generated at DRB. The PDCP Control PDU includes a PDCP Status PDU and header compression control information”, [0048] “A PDCP Status PDU is used to convey a PDCP status report indicating which PDCP SDUs are missing”, (Examiner’s Note: PDCP status report is sent in uplink, [0081]).
Regarding claim 11, Yi teaches wherein the PDCP discard report is processed based on the parameter indicating uplink PDCP Sequence Number Size (([0051] “Missing Sequence number (FMS) field 530 indicated a Sequence Number (SN) of a first missing PDCP SDU “ …[0055] “ a UE may calculate an amount of PDCP SDU which is successfully received from a BS. For uplink QoS verification, a UE may calculate an amount of PDCP SDU which is successfully transmitted to a BS”).
Regarding claim 12, Yi teaches wherein a PDCP status report is processed based on the parameter indicating downlink PDCP Sequence Number Size (([0051] “Missing Sequence number (FMS) field 530 indicated a Sequence Number (SN) of a first missing PDCP SDU “ …[0055] “ a UE may calculate an amount of PDCP SDU which is successfully received from a BS. For uplink QoS verification, a UE may calculate an amount of PDCP SDU which is successfully transmitted to a BS”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument 1
In the present Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges that Application No.
18/644,01 1 alone does not teach the limitations "starting, by the terminal, a discard timer for a Service Data Unit (SDU) of the DRB" and "discarding, by the terminal, one or more SDUs of the DRB upon expiry of the discard timer," and relies upon Yang et al. (US20250168260) to supply these teachings.
Yang et al. is a third-party prior art reference, not a co-pending application of the same inventive entity or assignee. The use of a third-party reference to supply missing claim
elements in an NSDP rejection is legally impermissible.
Examiner’s Response 1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner confused what applicant is trying to state. There is not requirement Applicant is trying to argue that would limit what reference can be used to determine what is obvious or not. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Applicant Argument 2
The technical roles of the two claims are fundamentally opposite: the reference claim in Application No. 18/644,011 describes the receiving side processing an incoming discard report, while the present pending claim describes the transmitting side generating and sending the discard report. These are complementary, not overlapping, inventions. An obviousness analysis under NSDP requires that the examined claim be unpatentable over the reference.
Examiner’s Response 2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please look at the table where I compare the claims side by side with the two applications. Examiner confused what applicant is trying to state. The difference between 18644007 and 18644011 is not receiving side, and incoming discard report rather the discard timer on the discard report.
Applicant’s Argument 3
The Examiner's equation of "total size" with "COUNT" is not technically supported, and no basis for such equivalence exists in Yi.
Because Yi does not disclose or suggest a PDCP discard report comprising a field related to the COUNT of a first discarded SDU, the combination of Yi and Yang cannot render Claims
1 and 13 obvious. Applicant requests that the rejection of Claims 1 and 13 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response 3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to claim 1, claims 1 states “wherein the PDCP discard report comprises a first field related to a COUNT of a first discarded SDU”.
First applicant is arguing a count value, Claim 1 refers to the COUNT value - a 32-bit sequence-number-based identifier- of a specific individual discarded SDU. As explicitly defined in the present specification, the FIRSTDISCARDCOUNT field "indicates the COUNT value of the first discarded PDCP SDU that has not been reported yet" and has a length of 32 bits. See Specification [0327]. This COUNT value is derived from TX NEXT and uniquely identifies a specific PDCP SDU in the transmission sequence. See Specification [0340].
None of what applicant is arguing is even in the claim, applicant does not even claim “a count value”, but rather a first field related to a count.
As how the claim is currently written “wherein the PDCP discard report comprises a first field related to a COUNT of a first discarded SDU”, a first field related to a COUNT can be BRI as total size described in [0086] of YI.
Applicant’s Argument 4
The Examiner concedes that Yi does not teach "starting, by the terminal, a discard timer for a Service Data Unit (SDU) of the DRB," the Examiner relies upon Yang [0108] to supply this limitation. Applicant respectfully submits that Yang does not teach this limitation in the manner required by the pending claims.
In pending Claim 1, the discard timer is started for an SDU of a DRB that was established based on RRC-configured PDCP parameters received from a base station. The discardTimer in the present invention is an RRC-configured parameter within PDCP-Config (see Specification
PNG
media_image1.png
87
13
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0317]: "discardTimer ENUMERATED {ms10, ms20, ...} OPTIONAL") and governs an individual SDU-level timer initiated by the transmitting TYPE_l_PDCP entity upon reception of each PDCP SDU. See Specification [0339].
Examiner’s Response 4
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argument are not in regards to the claim. The claims calls for starting, by the terminal, a discard timer for a Service Data Unit (SDU) of the DRB; discarding, by the terminal, one or more SDUs of the DRB upon expiry of the discard timer. The combination of Yang and Yi teaches for starting, by the terminal, a discard timer for a Service Data Unit (SDU) of the DRB; discarding, by the terminal, one or more SDUs of the DRB upon expiry of the discard timer see mapping above.
Applicant’s Argument 5
Applicant argues Yi and Yang, Individually or in Combination, Do Not Teach the Claimed Lowest COUNT of Discarded SDUs (Claim 4).
Examiner’s Response 5
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Yi and Yang teaches “wherein the specific COUNT is a lowest COUNT of SDUs that are discarded due to expiry of the discard timer”.
More specifically, Yang is relied upon to show ([0023] “the COUNT information may indicate a first discarded COUNT (FDC) value. The FDC value may be a smallest COUNT value among the one or more discarded COUNT values”).
Applicant’s Argument 6
Applicant argue Yi and Yang, Individually or in Combination, Do Not Teach the Claimed Highest COUNT of Discarded SDUs.
Examiner’s Response 6
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Yi and Yang teaches “wherein the first field of the PDCP discard report indicates a highest COUNT of SDUs that are discarded”.
More specifically, Yang is relied upon to show ([0009] “In some embodiments, the COUNT information may indicate a last discarded COUNT (LDC) value. The LDC value may be a largest COUNT value among the one or more discarded COUNT values”).
Applicant’s Argument 7
Applicant argues Yi Does Not Teach a Second Field Indicating Discarded SDUs Other Than the First Discarded SDU (Claim 7).
Examiner’s Response 7
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yi teaches “wherein the second field indicates one or more discarded SDUs other than the first discarded SDU”. Yi is relied upon to show wherein the second field indicates one or more discarded SDUs other than the first discarded SDU ([0086] “The PDCP status report for uplink RB may include at least one of information on the total size of the missing PDCP SDUs, information on the total size of the transmitting PDCP SDUs and information on the total size of the discarded PDCP SDUs”).
Applicant’s Argument 8
Applicant argues No Motivation to Combine Yi and Yang.
Examiner’s Response
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, [0067] “The embodiment techniques avoid wasting valuable radio resources on unnecessary transmissions” which would result in improving QOS handling of packet .
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 KEITH TRAN-DANH FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3071. The examiner can normally be reached 10am -6 pm M-Th.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/K.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights