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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Sivanesan discloses a method performed by a user equipment, UE 506 in FIG. 5, for handling data transmitted over a split bearer between a first radio network node (MeNB 502) and the UE 506, and between a second radio network node (SeNB 504) and the UE in a wireless communication network (paragraph 33, lines 6-7: “the bearer split may refer to an ability to split a bearer over multiple eNBs … based on a downlink split ratio.”; paragraph 54, lines 7-8: “determine a downlink split ratio for bearers of the MeNB and the SeNB to the UE based in part on the effective data rates for the UE, as in block 720”), the method comprising:
buffering one or more packets from the first radio network node 502 and the second radio network node 506 (paragraph 33, lines 10-12: “The MeNB may communicate the M-PDCP PDUs to the UE via a MeNB radio link … the SeNB may communicate the S-PDCP PDUs to the UE via a SeNB radio link”) received over the split bearer in a reordering buffer (paragraph 34, lines 6-7: “The PDCP layer may … store the PDCP SDUs in a reordering buffer, wherein the reordering buffer assembles the PDCP SDUs in a correct order”).
Sivanesan fails to disclose transmitting one or more indications to one of the radio network nodes, wherein the one or more indications indicate a status of the reordering buffer.
However, in an analogous art, Basu Mallick discloses transmitting one or more indications (corresponding to PDCP status report information) to one of radio network nodes (corresponding to the MeNB) (paragraph 272, lines 7-8: “the UE sends PDCP status report information for the corresponding radio bearers directly to the MeNB.”), wherein the one or more indications indicate a status of a reordering buffer (paragraph 194, lines 5-6: “The PDCP status report describes the latest reordering buffer status of the PDCP receiver”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan by incorporating this feature taught in Basu Mallick for the purpose of allowing efficient retransmission and ensuring timely and in-order delivery of data.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661) and Sebire (US 2009/0125650).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sivanesan and Basu Mallick fails to disclose that the one or more indications comprise a level indication, wherein the level indication indicates that a level of the reordering buffer has reached a threshold level, or a level of the reordering buffer.
However, in an analogous art, Sebire discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to a buffer status report) comprise a level indication, wherein the level indication indicates that a level of the reordering buffer has reached a threshold level, or a level of the reordering buffer (paragraph 53, lines 2-3: “detecting … a pre-selected condition may include detecting that … the data in communication buffers has exceeded a pre-determine threshold”; claim 1, lines 2-4: “designating one of a plurality of buffer status reporting formats depending on the pre-selected condition detected; and communicating a buffer status report to a network device in accordance with the buffer status reporting format designated”; detecting that the data in communication buffers has exceeded a pre-determine threshold corresponds to a level indication that indicates that a level of the reordering buffer has reached a threshold level). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Sebire for the purpose of allowing the network to adjust transmissions based on UE buffer conditions and avoiding overflow while ensuring efficient data delivery.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661) and Chen et al. (US 2015/0098322).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sivanesan and Basu Mallick fails to disclose that the one or more indications comprise an indication of which transmission path is causing an increase of level in the reordering buffer.
However, in an analogous art, Chen discloses that one or more indications comprise an indication (buffer status report or BSR) of which transmission path is causing an increase of level (corresponding to the size) in a reordering buffer (paragraph 29, line 1: “Step 530: Calculate buffer sizes indicated in a first BSR for the MeNB and a second BSR for the SeNB”; paragraph 9, lines 11-12: “Both MeNB and SeNB may allocate the uplink resource according to the received BSRs and the uplink resource would be wasted accordingly because the PDCP buffer size is doubly counted”; this corresponds to recognizing which transmission path is causing an increase of level in a reordering buffer; claim 19, lines 1-2: “the BSR configuration includes at least one of ratios of uplink resources allocation for the first base station and the second base station”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Chen for the purpose of enabling the network to identify imbalanced or delayed paths and adjusting scheduling and retransmissions accordingly.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661) and Li et al. (US 2021/0007134).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sivanesan and Basu Mallick fails to disclose that the one or more indications comprise at least a one-bit value indicating presence of the one or more indications.
However, in an analogous art, Li discloses that one or more indications comprise at least a one-bit value indicating presence of the one or more indications (corresponding to continuing transmission mode) (paragraph 41, lines 4-6: “a bit… may be provided … to indicate the continuing transmission mode to be used for … uplink transmission.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Li for the purpose of efficiently signaling whether additional information is present while minimizing overhead.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view of Ibrahim et al. (US 2023/0276291).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sivanesan and Basu Mallick fails to disclose that the one or more indications indicates one or both of a first throughput of a first transmission path of the split bearer and a second throughput of a second transmission path of the split bearer.
However, in an analogous art, Ibrahim discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to an index for uplink quality) indicates one or both of a first throughput of a first transmission path of the split bearer (corresponding to the uplink throughput for the first cell group) and a second throughput of a second transmission path of the split bearer (corresponding to the uplink throughput for the first cell group) (paragraph 142, lines 1-2: “At 824, the UE may determine whether uplink throughput for the first cell group (e.g., the LTE cell group) is better than uplink throughput for the second cell group (e.g., the 5G NR cell group)”; paragraph 200, line 1: “UL data traffic is carried via a split bearer between LTE and NR”; paragraph 141, line 9: “the UE may use the index for NR uplink and the index for LTE uplink to quantify uplink quality”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Ibrahim for the purpose of dynamically adjusting data splitting across multiple transmission paths to improve overall throughput and resource utilization.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sivanesan and Basu fails to disclose that the one or more indications comprise a link indication indicating one or both of a first performance of a first transmission path of the split bearer and a second performance of a second transmission path of the split bearer.
However, Ibrahim discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to an index for uplink quality) comprise a link indication indicating one or both of a first performance of a first transmission path of the split bearer (corresponding to a performance of a first cell group) and a second performance of a second transmission path of the split bearer (corresponding to a performance of a second cell group) (paragraph 141, lines 2-3: “the UE may compare performance between a first cell group … and a second cell group”; paragraph 141, line 2: “the network is using a split bearer for uplink traffic”; paragraph 141, line 9: “the UE may use the index for NR uplink and the index for LTE uplink to quantify uplink quality”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Ibrahim for the purpose of enabling the selection of a higher performing path, thereby improving data transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Ibrahim further discloses that the link indication comprises one or more of a ratio value, an amount of data, a number of packets, and a throughput value (paragraph 142, lines 1-2: “At 824, the UE may determine whether uplink throughput for the first cell group (e.g., the LTE cell group) is better than uplink throughput for the second cell group (e.g., the 5G NR cell group)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Ibrahim by incorporating this feature further taught in Ibrahim for the purpose of dynamically adjusting data splitting across multiple transmission paths to improve overall throughput and resource utilization.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view Yi et al. (US 2013/0235803).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sivanesan and Basu Mallick fails to disclose that the one or more indications is comprised in a packet data convergence protocol header.
However, in an analogous art, Yi discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to an integrity protection indicator) is comprised in a packet data convergence protocol header (paragraph 74, lines 3-4: “the integrity protection indicator may be added in the PDCP header to indicate whether the corresponding PDU is integrity protected or not”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Yi for the purpose of enabling efficient signaling of packet-related information without requiring separate control messages, thereby reducing signaling overhead.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view Lindheimer et al. (US 2026/0032759).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sivanesan and Basu Mallick fails to disclose the one or more indications is comprised in a radio resource control message.
However, in an analogous art, Lindheimer discloses that one or more indications is comprised in a radio resource control message. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Lindeimer for the purpose of enabling centralized and reliable configuration or control of the indication using existing control signaling.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view Phuyal et al. (US 2018/0124642).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sivanesan and Basu Mallick fails to disclose that the one or more indications is transmitted according to a configured periodicity.
However, in an analogous art, Phuyal discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to a PDCP status report) is transmitted (corresponding to being sent by a UE) according to a configured periodicity (paragraph 58, lines 7-8: “The … PDCP status report may be sent by the UE periodically, wherein the periodicity may be configured by the eNB 110”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Phuyal for the purpose of reducing unnecessary transmissions while ensuring that updated information is provided at regular intervals.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view Phuyal et al. (US 2018/0124642) and Chen, IV et al. (US 2019/0319686).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Phuyal fails to disclose that the configured periodicity is based on one or more of type of traffic, type of service and type of radio access technology, RAT.
However, in an analogous art, Chen, IV discloses that a configured periodicity is based on one or more of type of traffic, type of service and type of radio access technology, RAT (paragraph 275, line 7: “The periodicity may be configurable according to a UE's … service type”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Phuyal by incorporating this feature taught in Chen, IV for the purpose of adapting reporting behavior to different service requirements and network conditions, thereby improving resource efficiency and performance.
Claim 12 and 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2018/0310202).
Regarding claims 12 and 35, Sivanesan discloses a method performed by a radio network node for handling transmission of data over a split bearer between a first radio network node (MeNB 502 in FIG. 5) and a user equipment, UE 506, and between a second radio network node (SeNB 504) and the UE 506 in a wireless communication network (paragraph 33, lines 6-7: “the bearer split may refer to an ability to split a bearer over multiple eNBs … based on a downlink split ratio.”; paragraph 54, lines 7-8: “determine a downlink split ratio for bearers of the MeNB and the SeNB to the UE based in part on the effective data rates for the UE, as in block 720”), the method comprising:
receiving one or more indications (corresponding to PDCP PDUs) from the UE (paragraph 32, line 1: “the PDCP layer in the MeNB may receive PDCP PDUs from the UE”), and performing a transmission of one or more packets over the split bearer (paragraph 30, lines 4-5: “In the downlink, the IP traffic may be split between paths to the UE via the MeNB and/or the SeNB”).
Sivanesan fails to disclose that the one or more indications received from the UE indicate a status of a reordering buffer at the UE.
However, Basu Mallick discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to PDCP status report information) received from a UE (paragraph 272, lines 7-8: “the UE sends PDCP status report information for the corresponding radio bearers directly to the MeNB.”) indicate a status of a reordering buffer (paragraph 194, lines 5-6: “The PDCP status report describes the latest reordering buffer status of the PDCP receiver”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan by incorporating this feature taught in Basu Mallick for the purpose of allowing efficient retransmission and ensuring timely and in-order delivery of data.
The combination of Sivanesan and Basu Mallick fails to disclose performing the transmission of one or more packets over the split bearer is based on the received one or more indications.
However, in an analogous art, Löhr discloses performing the transmission of one or more packets over the split bearer is based on the received one or more indications (paragraph 102, lines 6-8: “receive an RRC message that includes an IE associated with transmitting … via the split bearer; paragraph 117, lines 3-5: “process the RRC message to extract the IE; and use the IE to configure which RLC protocol entity … to use for said transmitting … data via the split bearer.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan and Basu Mallick by incorporating this feature taught in Löhr for the purpose of enabling controlled and efficient routing of data across multiple network nodes, thereby improving coordination in split bearer operation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2018/0310202) and Susitaival et al. (US 2016/0255551).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr fails to disclose performing the transmission comprises selecting a transmission path of the split bearer for an upcoming packet based on the one or more indications.
However, in an analogous art, Susitaival discloses performing the transmission comprises selecting a transmission path of the split bearer for an upcoming packet based on the one or more indications (paragraph 10, lines 7-10: “obtaining an indication to switch transmission of uplink data from the first network node to the second network node; and communicating the data … to the first network node … communicating data … to the second network node.”; paragraph 12, lines 3-4: “facilitate reconfiguration of a UEs split bearer uplink to switch from one eNB to another.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr by incorporating this feature taught in Susitaival for the purpose of dynamically routing packets over an optimal transmission path based on network conditions, thereby improving resource utilization over the split bearer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2018/0310202) and Sebire (US 2009/0125650).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr fails to disclose that the one or more indications comprise a level indication, wherein the level indication indicates that a level of the reordering buffer has reached a threshold level, or a level of the reordering buffer.
However, in an analogous art, Sebire discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to a buffer status report) comprise a level indication, wherein the level indication indicates that a level of the reordering buffer has reached a threshold level, or a level of the reordering buffer (paragraph 53, lines 2-3: “detecting … a pre-selected condition may include detecting that … the data in communication buffers has exceeded a pre-determine threshold”; claim 1, lines 2-4: “designating one of a plurality of buffer status reporting formats depending on the pre-selected condition detected; and communicating a buffer status report to a network device in accordance with the buffer status reporting format designated”; detecting that the data in communication buffers has exceeded a pre-determine threshold corresponds to a level indication that indicates that a level of the reordering buffer has reached a threshold level). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr by incorporating this feature taught in Sebire for the purpose of allowing the network to adjust transmissions based on UE buffer conditions and avoiding overflow while ensuring efficient data delivery.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2018/0310202) and Chen et al. (US 2015/0098322).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr fails to disclose that the one or more indications comprise an indication of which transmission path is causing an increase of level in the reordering buffer.
However, in an analogous art, Chen discloses that one or more indications comprise an indication (buffer status report or BSR) of which transmission path is causing an increase of level (corresponding to the size) in a reordering buffer (paragraph 29, line 1: “Step 530: Calculate buffer sizes indicated in a first BSR for the MeNB and a second BSR for the SeNB”; paragraph 9, lines 11-12: “Both MeNB and SeNB may allocate the uplink resource according to the received BSRs and the uplink resource would be wasted accordingly because the PDCP buffer size is doubly counted”; this corresponds to recognizing which transmission path is causing an increase of level in a reordering buffer; claim 19, lines 1-2: “the BSR configuration includes at least one of ratios of uplink resources allocation for the first base station and the second base station”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr by incorporating this feature taught in Chen for the purpose of enabling the network to identify imbalanced or delayed paths and adjusting scheduling and retransmissions accordingly.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2018/0310202) and Li et al. (US 2021/0007134).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr fails to disclose that the one or more indications comprise at least a one-bit value indicating presence of the one or more indications.
However, in an analogous art, Li discloses that one or more indications comprise at least a one-bit value indicating presence of the one or more indications (corresponding to continuing transmission mode) (paragraph 41, lines 4-6: “a bit… may be provided … to indicate the continuing transmission mode to be used for … uplink transmission.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr by incorporating this feature taught in Li for the purpose of efficiently signaling whether additional information is present while minimizing overhead.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2018/0310202) and Ibrahim et al. (US 2023/0276291).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr fails to disclose that the one or more indications indicates one or both of a first throughput of a first transmission path of the split bearer and a second throughput of a second transmission path of the split bearer.
However, in an analogous art, Ibrahim discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to an index for uplink quality) indicates one or both of a first throughput of a first transmission path of the split bearer (corresponding to the uplink throughput for the first cell group) and a second throughput of a second transmission path of the split bearer (corresponding to the uplink throughput for the first cell group) (paragraph 142, lines 1-2: “At 824, the UE may determine whether uplink throughput for the first cell group (e.g., the LTE cell group) is better than uplink throughput for the second cell group (e.g., the 5G NR cell group)”; paragraph 200, line 1: “UL data traffic is carried via a split bearer between LTE and NR”; paragraph 141, line 9: “the UE may use the index for NR uplink and the index for LTE uplink to quantify uplink quality”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr by incorporating this feature taught in Ibrahim for the purpose of dynamically adjusting data splitting across multiple transmission paths to improve overall throughput and resource utilization.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr fails to disclose that the one or more indications comprise a link indication indicating one or both of a first performance of a first transmission path of the split bearer and/or a second performance of a second transmission path of the split bearer, wherein performing the transmission comprises selecting a transmission path of the split bearer that has a better performance than the other transmission path according to the link indication.
However, Ibrahim discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to an index for uplink quality) comprise a link indication indicating one or both of a first performance of a first transmission path of the split bearer (corresponding to a performance of a first cell group) and/or a second performance of a second transmission path of the split bearer (corresponding to a performance of a second cell group) (paragraph 141, lines 2-3: “the UE may compare performance between a first cell group … and a second cell group”; paragraph 141, line 2: “the network is using a split bearer for uplink traffic”; paragraph 141, line 9: “the UE may use the index for NR uplink and the index for LTE uplink to quantify uplink quality”), wherein performing the transmission comprises selecting (corresponding to preferring) a transmission path of the split bearer that has a better performance than the other transmission path according to the link indication (paragraph 168, lines 4-6: “when the UL performance for the LTE bearer is better than the UL performance for the NR bearer, the LTE bearer may be preferred over the NR bearer.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr by incorporating this feature taught in Ibrahim for the purpose of enabling the selection of a higher performing path, thereby improving data transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, Ibrahim further discloses that the link indication comprises one or more of a ratio value, an amount of data, a number of packets, and a throughput value (paragraph 142, lines 1-2: “At 824, the UE may determine whether uplink throughput for the first cell group (e.g., the LTE cell group) is better than uplink throughput for the second cell group (e.g., the 5G NR cell group)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick, Löhr and Ibrahim by incorporating this feature further taught in Ibrahim for the purpose of dynamically adjusting data splitting across multiple transmission paths to improve overall throughput and resource utilization.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan et al. (US 2015/0085800) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US 2016/0212661), and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2018/0310202) and Yi et al. (US 2013/0235803).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr fails to disclose that the one or more indications is comprised in a packet data convergence protocol header; or a radio resource control message.
However, in an analogous art, Yi discloses that one or more indications (corresponding to an integrity protection indicator) is comprised in a packet data convergence protocol header or a radio resource control message (paragraph 74, lines 3-4: “the integrity protection indicator may be added in the PDCP header to indicate whether the corresponding PDU is integrity protected or not”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sivanesan, Basu Mallick and Löhr by incorporating this feature taught in Yi for the purpose of enabling efficient signaling of packet-related information without requiring separate control messages, thereby reducing signaling overhead.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Panchal et al. (US 2022/0400529) discloses comparing parameters included in a configuration request with the mapping information for selection of a dual connectivity configuration.
Sammour et al. (US 10,630,819) discloses that a PDCP layer discards a PDCP SDU based on a notification from an RLC layer or based on a PDCP status report.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646