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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. 2021/0288912 to Basu Mallick et al. (hereinafter Basu Mallick).
In regard claim 1, Basu Mallick teaches or discloses a method of a user equipment (UE) that is served by a cluster of base stations for packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) processing for a PDCP entity, comprising:
generating a concatenated service data unit (SDU) set by concatenating a plurality of SDUs for a protocol data unit (PDU) set (see paragraph [0078], the PDCP layer continues generating the PDCP PDU out of the higher layer PDCP SDU, and once generated, forwards the generated PDCP PDU to the lower layer, RLC);
segmenting the concatenated SDU set into one or more systematic PDUs of the PDU set (see paragraph [0092], segmentation and concatenation of RLC SDUs (i.e., PDCP PDUs); reordering of RLC PDUs; Duplicate detection of RLC SDUs; Reassembly of RLC SDUs);
performing an encoding with the one or more systematic PDUs to generate one or more redundant PDUs of the PDU set (see paragraph [0090], the RLC layer reformats PDCP PDUs (i.e., RLC SDUs) in order to fit them into the size indicated by the MAC layer; i.e., the RLC transmitter segments and/or concatenates the PDCP PDUs, and the RLC receiver reassembles 0the RLC PDUs to reconstruct the PDCP PDUs);
distributing the one or more systematic PDUs and the one or more redundant PDUs across one or more radio link control (RLC) entities for transmission to one or more sub-clusters of the cluster of base stations that correspond to the one or more RLC entities (see paragraph [0141], in downlink, the slave RLC takes care of the delay-critical RLC operation needed at the SeNB: it receives from the master RLC at the MeNB readily built RLC PDUs (with Sequence Number already assigned by the master) that the master has assigned for transmission by the slave, and transmits them to the UE).
In regard claim 13, Basu Mallick teaches or discloses a method of a cluster of base stations that is serving a user equipment (UE) for packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) processing for a PDCP entity, comprising:
generating a concatenated service data unit (SDU) set by concatenating a plurality of SDUs for a protocol data unit (PDU) set (see paragraph [0078], the PDCP layer continues generating the PDCP PDU out of the higher layer PDCP SDU, and once generated, forwards the generated PDCP PDU to the lower layer, RLC);
segmenting the concatenated SDU set into one or more systematic PDUs of the PDU set (see paragraph [0092], segmentation and concatenation of RLC SDUs (i.e., PDCP PDUs); reordering of RLC PDUs; Duplicate detection of RLC SDUs; Reassembly of RLC SDUs);
performing an encoding with the one or more systematic PDUs to generate one or more redundant PDUs of the PDU set (see paragraph [0090], the RLC layer reformats PDCP PDUs (i.e., RLC SDUs) in order to fit them into the size indicated by the MAC layer; i.e., the RLC transmitter segments and/or concatenates the PDCP PDUs, and the RLC receiver reassembles 0the RLC PDUs to reconstruct the PDCP PDUs); and
distributing the one or more systematic PDUs and the one or more redundant PDUs across one or more radio link control (RLC) entities corresponding to one or more sub-clusters of the cluster of base stations for transmission to the UE (see paragraph [0141], in downlink, the slave RLC takes care of the delay-critical RLC operation needed at the SeNB: it receives from the master RLC at the MeNB readily built RLC PDUs (with Sequence Number already assigned by the master) that the master has assigned for transmission by the slave, and transmits them to the UE).
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick in view of US Pub. 2021/0059010 to Kim.
In regard claims 2 and 14, Basu Mallick may not explicitly teach or disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the concatenated SDU set is further generated by: generating an authentication code for the plurality of SDUs; and concatenating, within the concatenated SDU set, the authentication code with the plurality of SDUs.
However, Kim teaches or discloses generating an authentication code for the plurality of SDUs (see paragraph [0177], generate a message authentication code-integrity (MAC-I), cipher the PDCP SDU and the MAC-I, concatenate the PDCP header, and deliver the data to the lower RLC layer 1f-10); and concatenating, within the concatenated SDU set, the authentication code with the plurality of SDUs (see paragraphs [0137], and [0144], concatenation, segmentation and reassembly of RLC SDUs).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify efficient discard mechanism of Basu Mallick by including generating an authentication code for the plurality of SDUs; and concatenating, within the concatenated SDU set, the authentication code with the plurality of SDUs suggested by Kim. This modification would provide apparatus capable of effectively providing services in a mobile communication system read in paragraph [0008].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-12 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIRIN SAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3082. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 10:30am - 5pm.
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, Ayaz R. Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272 - 3795. 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.
Date: 06/25/2026
/PHIRIN SAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights