DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 08/27/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 Status
Claims 3 and 7 are amended.
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 1-19 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Applicant’s response has been fully considered. Below are applicant’s main arguments and examiner’s response to those arguments:
Applicant’s argument: (remark pages 6-8), filed on 08/27/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 14, ‘Independent Claims 1 and 14 are Patentable … R2-200 does not disclose "a split radio bearer between the first network node and two or more corresponding network nodes," as recited by claim 1 … Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 14, and the claims depending therefrom, is respectfully requested’.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. R2-200 teaches PDCP aggregation with split bearer over both MCG node (“Node 1”) and SCG node (“Node 2”) (R2-200: [FIG.1], [Page 3], [Page 5]); MCG node receives DL latency over SCG path reported by SCG node (R2-200: [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity”) and MCG node then performs the action of separately deriving the DL delay of two paths (MCG path and SCG path) and action of deriving DL delay of the DRB (split bearer) based on the DL delays of the two paths (R2-200: [Page 5]). Therefore, R2-200 teaches the subject matters as claimed.
Applicant’s argument: (remark pages 9-10), filed on 08/27/2026, with respect to claim 4 and 17, ‘Claims 4 and 17 are Patentable … As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the PDCP duplication discussed in R3-202 cannot be relied upon to teach the "aggregating PDCP communication"" recited in claim 4. R3-202 therefore fails to cure the deficiencies of R2-200. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 4 and 17 is respectfully requested’.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, examiner would like to mention that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As response above, R2-200 teaches the PDCP aggregation.
Similar responses that applicant argued against the references individually are applicable for applicant’s arguments (remark pages 10-12), with respect to claims 5 and 18, claims 6 and 19, and claim 10.
Applicant’s argument: (remark page 12), filed on 08/27/2026, with respect to claim 11, ‘Claim 11 is Patentable … Additionally, the Office relied on this same passage as the reason to combine,
which undercuts the rationale. Zhang therefore fails to cure the deficiencies of R2-200. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 11 is respectfully requested’.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. R2-200 teaches SCG node transmits a feedback message (its DL delay) to the MCG node (R2-200: [Page 4], [Page 5]). Zhang teaches a node transmits report about PDCP status in each scheduling period (Zhang: [0292], [0295]). Therefore, combination of R2-200 and Zhang teaches the subject matters as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 6-13), filed on 08/27/2026, with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are not convincing. The claim rejections for claims 1-19 are maintained.
This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by R2-2007770 (“Discussion on MDT enhancements”) (IDS cited), hereinafter “R2-200”.
Per claim 1, 7 and 14:
Regarding claim 14, R2-200 teaches ‘A first network node’ (R2-200: [FIG.1]: “Node 1”; [Page 4]: “gNB”); ‘hosting a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, entity for handling communication of a user equipment, UE, in a wireless communications network’ (R2-200: [FIG.1]: “Split bearer in MR-DC”: “Node 1” hosting “PDCP”; [FIG.2]: wireless communication network; [Page 4]: “For the split bearers, the node hosting the PDCP entity receives some packets from another node … Since the scheduling latency is different in the two paths, we think the UE should report two D1s in MR-DC”, handling communication of UE); ‘wherein the first network node comprising: at least one processor’ (existence of processor for a gNB node is implied); ‘memory’ (existence of memory for a gNB node is implied); ‘coupled with the at least one processor, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor causes the first network node to perform operations’ (these are implied);
‘comprising:
receive from one or more corresponding network nodes, an indication of a delay related to scheduling of data communication over an air interface between respective corresponding network node and the UE’ (R2-200: [FIG.1]: “Node 1”, “Node 2”; [Page 4]: “For split bearers, both MCG and SCG radio resources are involved. The packets of one DRB are transmitted via two paths. The latency of these two paths are different”; [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity”; [Page 3]: “the DL delay in over-the-air interface”);
‘perform one or more actions related to aggregating PDCP communication over a split radio bearer between the first network node and two or more corresponding network nodes based on the received indication’ (R2-200: [Page 5]: “the node hosting the PDCP entity separately derives the DL delays of two paths and derives the DL delays of this DRB based on the DL delays of two paths”).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the first network node according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 7, R2-200 teaches ‘A method’ (R2-200: [Page 1]: “procedure”; [Page 2]: “enhancement in MR-DC”); ‘performed by a corresponding network node for handling communication of a user equipment, UE, in a wireless communications network’ (R2-200: [FIG.1]: “Node 2”; [FIG.2]: wireless communication network; [Page 4]: “Since the scheduling latency is different in the two paths, we think the UE should report two D1s in MR-DC”, handling communication of UE);
‘the method comprising:
transmitting to a first network node hosting a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, entity for the corresponding network node, an indication of a delay related to scheduling of data communication over an air interface to the UE’ (R2-200: [FIG.1]: “Node 1”, “Node 2”; [Page 4]: “For split bearers, both MCG and SCG radio resources are involved. The packets of one DRB are transmitted via two paths. The latency of these two paths are different”; [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity”; [Page 3]: “the DL delay in over-the-air interface”);
‘wherein, based on the indication, actions related to aggregating PDCP communication over a split radio bearer between the first network node and two or more corresponding network nodes are performed’ (R2-200: [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity. Then, the node hosting the PDCP entity separately derives the DL delays of two paths and derives the DL delays of this DRB based on the DL delays of two paths”, SCG node (the corresponding node) reports its DL delay to MCG node and then MCG performs action separately deriving the DL delay of two paths (MCG path and SCG path) and action of deriving DL delay of the DRB (split bearer) based on the DL delays of the two paths).
Per claim 2, 8 and 15:
Regarding claim 15, R2-200 teaches the first network node according to claim 14 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘wherein the indication comprises a value indicating the delay being an expected air interface scheduling delay of the respective corresponding network node’ (R2-200: [Page 3]: “RAN2 supports the delay measurement of RAN part for MN terminated MCG bearer and SN terminated SCG bearer. The RAN part of DL delay measurement comprises D1 (the DL delay in over-the-air interface)”).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the method implemented by the first network node according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 8, R2-200 teaches the method according to claim 7 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘wherein the indication comprises a value indicating the delay being an expected air interface scheduling delay of the corresponding network node’ (R2-200: [Page 3]: “RAN2 supports the delay measurement of RAN part for MN terminated MCG bearer and SN terminated SCG bearer. The RAN part of DL delay measurement comprises D1 (the DL delay in over-the-air interface)”).
Per claim 3 and 16:
Regarding claim 16, R2-200 teaches the first network node according to claim 14 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘wherein the indication comprises feedback messages’ (R2-200: [Page 4]: “the UL scheduling latency (including HARQ transmission delay and RLC delay) in these two nodes are different … The corresponding node measures the HARQ (re)transmission delay and RLC delay to the node hosting the PDCP entity”; [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity”; feedback (report) the retransmission delay or RLC delay);
‘the first network node is configured to determine the delay being an expected air interface scheduling delay of the respective corresponding network node, based on the received feedback messages’ (R2-200: [Page 4]: “the node hosting the PDCP entity separately derives the UL delays of two paths and derives the UL delays of this DRB based on the UL delays of two paths”; [Page 5]: “the node hosting the PDCP entity separately derives the DL delays of two paths and derives the DL delays of this DRB based on the DL delays of two paths”).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the method implemented by the first network node according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
Regarding claim 9, R2-200 teaches the method according to claim 7 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘determining the delay at the corresponding network node’ (R2-200: [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it”).
Regarding claim 12, R2-200 teaches the method according to claim 7 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘wherein the indication is for communication related to a split radio bearer between the first network node and two or more corresponding network nodes’ (R2-200: [FIG.1]: “Split bearer in MR-DC” : “Node 1”, “Node 2”).
Regarding claim 13, R2-200 teaches the method according to claim 7 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘wherein the indication is: transmitted without receiving a request for said indication’ (R2-200: [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity”; report without request);
‘or upon receiving a polling message from the first network node; transmitted periodically; and/or transmitted upon fulfilling a condition related to a level of the delay’ (these are optional).
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.
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 4-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R2-200, in view of R3-202324 (“Assistance information for DL PDCP duplication with more than 2 entities”) (IDS cited), hereinafter “R3-202”.
Per claim 4 and 17:
Regarding claim 17, R2-200 teaches the first network node according to claim 14 (discussed above).
R2-200 does not expressly teach ‘wherein the first network node is configured to perform the one or more actions by deactivating or activating a PDCP aggregation at the first network node’.
R3-202 in the same field of endeavor teaches node hosting PDCP performs activating or deactivating PDCP aggregation (duplication) based on assistance information from corresponding node (R3-202: [Figure 5.4.3.1-1]: “corresponding node” -> “node hosting NR PDCP”: “ASSISTANCE INFORMATION DATA”; [Page 4]: “The purpose of the Transfer of Assistance Information procedure is to provide assistance information to the node hosting the NR PDCP entity. Such information may be taken into consideration by the node hosting the NR PDCP entity for UP management and optimisation procedures … The ASSISTANCE INFORMATION DATA frame may include the PDCP Duplication Activation Suggestion, which informs the node hosting the NR PDCP entity of the suggestion from the corresponding node on whether to activate or not activate DL PDCP duplication”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine R3-202’s teaching with that of R2-200 for the first network node to be configured to perform the one or more actions by deactivating or activating a PDCP aggregation at the first network node in order to optimize procedures (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the method implemented by the first network node according to claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above).
Per claim 5 and 18:
Regarding claim 18, R2-200 teaches the first network node according to claim 14 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘giving higher priority to radio bearer in a loaded corresponding network node; and/or performing earlier transmission of one or more packets’ (these are optional).
R2-200 does not expressly teach, but R3-202 teaches ‘prohibiting PDCP aggregation’ (R3-202: [Page 4]: “The purpose of the Transfer of Assistance Information procedure is to provide assistance information to the node hosting the NR PDCP entity. Such information may be taken into consideration by the node hosting the NR PDCP entity for UP management and optimisation procedures … not activate DL PDCP duplication”, prohibit (not activate) PDCP aggregation (duplication)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine R3-202’s teaching with that of R2-200 in order to optimize procedures (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the method implemented by the first network node according to claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overR2-200, in view of Jheng et al. (US 20180279168 A1) (IDS cited), hereinafter “Jheng”.
Per claim 6 and 19:
Regarding claim 19, R2-200 teaches the first network node according to claim 14 (discussed above).
R2-200 teach ‘compare the indicated delay with a threshold and when exceeding the threshold the first network node is configured to perform the one or more actions’ (R2-200: [Page 5]: “For the DL delay, the node hosting the PDCP entity measures the DL latency of its path. The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity. Then, the node hosting the PDCP entity separately derives the DL delays of two paths and derives the DL delays of this DRE based on the DL delays of two paths”). However, R2-200 fails to expressly teach compare with a threshold.
Jheng in the same field of endeavor teaches activate or deactivate PDCP duplication (aggregation) based on a threshold (Jheng: [FIG.8]; [0076]: “PDCP duplication triggered based on measurement event thresholds … predefined PDCP duplication trigger entry threshold 808 and PDCP duplication trigger exit threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jheng’s teaching with that of R2-200 for the first network node to compare the indicated delay with a threshold and when exceeding the threshold the first network node is configured to perform the one or more actions in order to dynamically start or disable PDCP duplication (Jheng: [0076]: “the base station 504 dynamically starts downlink PDCP duplication … Both the downlink and uplink PDCP duplication functionality is dynamically disabled by the base station 504 and UE 502, respectively”).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the method implemented by the first network node according to claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R2-200, in view of Sheng et al. (WO 2022027558 A1), hereinafter “Sheng”.
Regarding claim 10, R2-200 teaches the method according to claim 7 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘wherein transmitting the indication comprises transmitting the indication upon fulfilling a condition related to a level of the delay’ (R2-200: [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity”). However, R2-200 fails to expressly teach ‘upon fulfilling a condition related to a level of the delay’.
Sheng in the same field of endeavor teaches transmit RLC activating/deactivating signaling upon a condition that the delay level of packets is met (Sheng: [0023]: “upon a condition that the delay level of packets is met an activation operation with X2/Xn interface delay, transmitting the RLC entities activating/deactivating signaling to an assisting network node, and forwarding the status message to the assisting network node”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sheng’s teaching with that of R2-200 to transmit the indication upon fulfilling a condition related to a level of the delay in order to activate/deactivate RLC entities based on a delay level (see reference quotes in element above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R2-200, in view of Zhang et al. (US 20230246975 A1), hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 11, R2-200 teaches the method according to claim 7 (discussed above).
R2-200 teaches ‘wherein transmitting the indication comprises transmitting a feedback message autonomously at every scheduling of data for the UE of a split radio bearer to the first network node’ (R2-200: [Page 4]: “the UL scheduling latency (including HARQ transmission delay and RLC delay) in these two nodes are different … The corresponding node measures the HARQ (re)transmission delay and RLC delay to the node hosting the PDCP entity”; [Page 5]: “The corresponding node measures the DL latency (i.e. the latency of scheduling the RLC SDU) in it and reports to the node hosting the PDCP entity”; feedback (report) the retransmission delay or RLC delay). However, R2-200 fails to expressly teach ‘autonomously at every scheduling of data for the UE of a split radio bearer to the first network node’.
Zhang in the same field of endeavor teaches a node transmits report about PDCP status in each scheduling period (Zhang: [0292]: “node U01 transmits a report in each scheduling period”; [0295]: “the report comprises a PDCP status report”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang’s teaching with that of R2-200 to transmit a feedback message autonomously at every scheduling of data for the UE of a split radio bearer to the first network node in order to balance the impact of frequent transmission and reduce system complexity (Zhang: [0058]: “a new method of controlling the transmission of PDCP reports is needed to balance the impact of frequent transmission and reduce system complexity”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights