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
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 2025/0193722 A1).
As to claim 1, Tsai teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (Fig. 1B, abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station (BS), a radio resource control (RRC) message configuring a remaining time threshold for a delay status report (DSR) [wireless device receives RRC messages from a base station comprising configuration parameters that include a remaining time threshold for a delay status report] (par. [0218], [0463], [0565]);
identifying a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data unit (SDU) associated with the DSR based on the remaining time threshold [identifying PDCP discard operation] (par. [0421]);
determining a PDCP data volume to be indicated to at least one medium access control (MAC) entity based on the PDCP SDU associated with the DSR [UE may cancel the triggered delay report DSR if a MAC layer of the UE receives an indication from an upper layer of the UE (e.g., PDCP/RLC layer)] (par. [0229], [0473]); and
transmitting, to the BS, a DSR MAC control element (CE) based on the PDCP data volume (par. [0448]).
As to claim 2, Tsai teaches that the PDCP SDU associated with the DSR is a PDCP SDU for which a remaining time till discard timer expiry is less than the remaining time threshold [the remaining time is shorter than a threshold] (par. [0486]).
As to claim 3, Tsai teaches that the PDCP SDU associated with the DSR is a PDCP SDU belonging to a PDU set of which another PDCP SDU has a remaining time till discard timer expiry less than the remaining time threshold [the timer-based discard operation should apply to all SDUs/PDUs belonging to the same PDU set for PDCP discard operation in unlink] (par. [0421]).
As to claim 4, Tsai teaches that the PDCP data volume is determined based on the PDCP SDU associated with DSR for which no PDCP data protocol data unit (PDU) has been constructed [data volume calculation] (par. [0229], [0306]).
As to claim 5, Tsai teaches that the PDCP data volume is determined based on a PDCP data PDU corresponding to the PDCP SDU associated with DSR that has not been submitted to lower layers [buffer size is calculated before it is transmitted to lower protocol layer] (par. [0074], [0229], [0296], [0306]).
As to claim 6, Tsai teaches, in case that a PDCP duplication is activated, indicating the PDCP data volume to a MAC entity associated with a primary radio link control (RLC) [activation/deactivation of PDCP duplication detection] (par. [0070], [0077]). It is noted that “in case that a PDCP duplication is activated” is a conditional language where there is no step of determining whether a PDCP duplication is activated, thus, rendering this step optional.
As to claim 7, Tsai teaches, in case that a PDCP duplication is activated: indicating the PDCP data volume excluding a PDCP control PDU to a MAC entity associated with a RLC entity other than a primary radio link control (RLC) entity activated for the PDCP duplication; and indicating the PDCP data volume as 0 to a MAC entity associated with a RLC entity deactivated for the PDCP duplication [zero buffer size] (par. [0268]-[0278], [0306]).
It is noted that “in case that a PDCP duplication is activated” is a conditional language where there is no step of determining whether a PDCP duplication is activated, thus, rendering this step optional.
As to claim 8, Tsai teaches, in case that a PDCP duplication is deactivated: in case that a split secondary RLC entity is configured and a total amount of the PDCP data volume and a RLC data volume pending for initial transmission in a primary radio link control (RLC) entity and the split secondary RLC entity is equal to or larger than a specific threshold configured by the BS, indicating the PDCP data volume to both a MAC entity associated with the primary RLC entity and a MAC entity associated with the split secondary RLC entity and indicating the PDCP data volume as 0 to a MAC entity associated with a RLC entity other than the primary RLC entity and the split secondary RLC entity [PDCPs may perform mapping/de-mapping between a split radio bearer and RLC channels in a dual connectivity scenario] (par. [0069]).
It is noted that “in case that a PDCP duplication is deactivated” and “in case that a split secondary RLC entity is configured…” are a conditional language where there is no step of determining whether a PDCP duplication is deactivated and there is no step of determining whether a split secondary RLC entity is configured…, thus, rendering these steps optional.
As to claim 9, Tsai teaches, in case that a PDCP duplication is deactivated: in case that a split secondary RLC entity is not configured or a total amount of the PDCP data volume and a RLC data volume pending for initial transmission in a primary radio link control (RLC) entity and the split secondary RLC entity is lower than a specific threshold configured by the BS, indicating the PDCP data volume to a MAC entity associated with the primary RLC entity and indicating the PDCP data volume as 0 to a MAC entity associated with a RLC entity other than the primary RLC entity [PDCPs may perform mapping/de-mapping between a split radio bearer and RLC channels in a dual connectivity scenario] (par. [0069]).
It is noted that “in case that a PDCP duplication is deactivated” and “in case that a split secondary RLC entity is not configured…” are a conditional language where there is no step of determining whether a PDCP duplication is deactivated and there is no step of determining whether a split secondary RLC entity is not configured…, thus, rendering these steps optional.
As to claim 11, Tsai teaches a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (UE 156 in Fig. 1B), the UE comprising: a transceiver (par. [0159], [0210]); and a controller (par. [0211], Fig. 15) configured to perform the functionality as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claims 12-19, Tsai teaches all the elements as discussed per corresponding method claims 2-9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
Tsai et al. (US 2025/0212045 A1) is directed to a delay status report(ing) (abstract). In particular, and as related to claim 10, Tsai discloses RLC SDUs (par. [0352]), but does not teach all of the claimed features.
Liu et al. (US 2024/0314626 A1) is directed to an information reporting method (abstract). In particular, Liu teaches a data volume of an RLC entity at the primary terminal corresponding to the PDCP entity of the aggregation bearer, for example, data corresponding to this data volume may include at least one of: an RLC SDU/SDU segment/PDU to be initially transmitted, an RLC status PDU to be transmitted, an RLC PDU to be retransmitted (par. [0107]). However, Liu fails to teach all of the elements of claims 10 and 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights