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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2024 and 08/11/2025 ware filed before and after the filing of the instant application on 05/30/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 3 and 6, lines 11-12, where, the term “SDU” has not been defined. Further claims 4-5, the terms ROHC and EHC are also not been defined. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 , the phrase "ROHC" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as it is not defined in the instant specification. This finding makes the claim vague and indefinite. Therefore claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 5 , the phrase "EHC" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as it is not defined in the instant specification. This finding makes the claim vague and indefinite. Therefore claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei et al (US 2024/0064493 A1), hereinafter, “Babaei” in view of Chen et al (US 2023/0389129 A1), hereinafter, “Chen”.
Regarding claim 3, Babaei discloses: A user equipment (UE) (Babaei: fig 1, UE 125), comprising: a processor (Babaei: fig 15, para [0101], where, includes processor/CPU 1540); and a memory storing instructions (Babaei: fig 15, para [0101], where, includes memory/storage 1530 that store instruction);
wherein the processor is configured by the instructions to: cause a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the UE to receive a PDCP entity re-establishment request from upper layers (Babaei: para [0139], where, “For radio bearers (e.g., DRBs, MRBs, etc.) using RLC AM mode, PDCP may either be re-established together with a security key change or may initiate a data recovery procedure without a key change. In some examples, for DRBs or MRBs using RLC UM mode and for SRBs, PDCP may either be re-established together with a security key change or may remain as it is without a key change”);
wherein the PDCP entity is a PDCP entity of an split multicast broadcast service radio bearer (MRB) (Babaei: fig 21A-B, para [0155], where, configured PDCP duplication and [0158], where, split multicast bearer) with an unacknowledged mode (UM) (Babaei: para [0139], where, “DRBs or MRBs using RLC UM mode and for SRBs, PDCP may either be re-established”); in response to a) the PDCP entity receiving the PDCP entity re-establishment request from the upper layers (Babaei: para [0133], where, “when upper layers request a PDCP entity re-establishment, for acknowledged mode (AM) radio bearers (e.g., DRBs, MRBs, etc.) which were not suspended, from the first PDCP SDU for which the successful delivery”);
and b) determining that a specific parameter is not configured, perform header decompression using a specific header compression protocol for all stored PDCP SDUs (Babaei: para [0133], where, “The transmitting PDCP entity may perform header compression of the PDCP SDU using ROHC, perform integrity protection and ciphering of the PDCP SDU using the COUNT value associated with this PDCP SDU and submit the resulting PDCP Data PDU to lower layer”); wherein the specific parameter indicates whether the PDCP entity continues or resets the specific header compression protocol during a PDCP re-establishment (Babaei: para [0138], where, “the handover mechanism triggered by RRC may require the UE at least to reset the MAC entity and re-establish RLC” and [0139], where, “for DRBs or MRBs using RLC UM mode and for SRBs, PDCP may either be re-established together with a security key change or may remain as it is without a key change”); and Babaei does not explicitly teach: radio link control (RLC) entity for point to multipoint (PTM) transmission and an acknowledged mode (AM) RLC entity for point to point (PTP) transmission;
Chen teaches: radio link control (RLC) entity for point to multipoint (PTM) transmission and an acknowledged mode (AM) (Chen: para [0047], where, “an uplink RLC AM channel corresponding to a downlink RLC AM on the network side in case that a downlink bearer of multicast PTM transmission is configured as radio link control (RLC) acknowledged mode (AM)”), RLC entity for point to point (PTP) transmission (Chen: para [0049], where, “when multicast PTM and unicast PTP transmission modes are simultaneously configured for the terminal, an uplink RLC UM channel of PTP transmission mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “radio link control (RLC) entity for point to multipoint (PTM) transmission and an acknowledged mode (AM) RLC entity for point to point (PTP) transmission” as taught by Chen into Babaei in order to receive PDCP PDU successfully (Chen: para [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Babaei discloses: The UE according to claim 3, wherein the specific header compression protocol is an ROHC header compression protocol (Babaei: para [0160], where, “A variation of robust header compression (ROHC) may be used for IP traffic and the Ethernet header compression may be used for IIoT multicast traffic”).
Regarding claim 5, Babaei discloses: The UE according to claim 3, wherein the specific header compression protocol is an EHC header compression protocol (Babaei: para [0160], where, “A variation of robust header compression (ROHC) may be used for IP traffic and the Ethernet header compression (EHC) may be used for IIoT multicast traffic”).
Regarding claim 6, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 3 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding packet transmission method, and the rejection to claim 3 is applied hereto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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 571-272-3155. 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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461