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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication received March 17th, 2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13, 15-17 have been amended. Claims 2, 8, and 14 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-19 have been entered and are presented for examination.
Application 17/487,219 is a Continuation of PCT/CN2020/081325 03/26/2020 and claims benefit of Chinese Application 201910252461.0 03/29/2019.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “However, as detailed in Applicants’ 02/18/2025 Response, Park merely describes the existing protocol discussed above — the receive end node may transmit a duplication transmission activation/deactivation command (the MAC CE message) to request the terminal device to activate or deactivate duplication transmission in response to the command. Thus, Park also does not teach that a terminal device can receive any status indication information indicating whether each RLC entity has already been activated.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claim recites “the network device comprises a first node and a second node” and “receiving, by the terminal device, second status indication information transmitted by the first node, or third status indication information transmitted by the second node, wherein the second status indication information indicates whether each of more than two RLC entities corresponding to the PDCP entity is activated, or indicates whether each of at least one RLC entity established on the first node is activated, and the third status indication information indicates whether each of more than two RLC entities corresponding to the PDCP entity is activated, or indicates whether each of at least one RLC entity established on the second node is activated.”
Park et al. discloses a MAC CE command to activate duplication (see Figure 15 and paragraph 0210). The command serves as an indication that [the original RLC entity and a second time on the additional RLC entity (paragraph 0209)] in the base station are activated (i.e., an status message).
Applicant argues “In particular, Shi describes that, if D3D2D1D0 = 1100, then 2 of 4 RLC entities are used to transmit duplicate data, and the other two do not transmit the duplicate data. However, indicating whether each RLC entity is used to transmit the duplicate data is different from indicating whether each RLC entity has been activated. For example, even if one RLC entity is not used to transmit duplicate data, it can still be an activated entity. Thus, Shi also fails to teach that these bits of MAC CE indicate whether each of the RLC entities has been activated or not, let alone the claimed 3-bit preset field, wherein at least two bits in the preset field each indicate whether one of the at least one RLC entity established on the first node has been activated.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Shi discloses the activation signaling may include the RLC entities for transmitting the duplicate data (paragraph 0086).
Shi discloses in FIG. 8, the MAC CE format is 1 byte. D7D6 . . . D0 is used to indicate the RLC entity. For example, the DRB of a DRB ID 8 is associated with 4 RLC entities, 4 bits in D7D6 . . . D0 are valid, which may be the last 4 or the first 4. The embodiment of the disclosure takes the last 4 bits as an example for description. If D3D2D1D0=1100, then 2 of the 4 RLC entities are used to transmit the duplicate data, and the other two do not transmit the duplicate data (paragraph 0088) and the correspondence between D3D2D1D0 and RLC may be in ascending or descending order of a logical channel identity (LCID) (paragraph 0089). The two RLCs, in the example, that do not transmit data are not activated by the activation signal. Bit value 1 - Activated (on) and bit value 0 - not activated (off).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0084682) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0098682) in view of Shi (US 2021/0345175).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, Wang et al. discloses a communication method, wherein when a radio bearer (RB) is established between a network device and a terminal device (see Figure 1 and paragraph [radio bearer between UE and gNB]), the network device comprises a first node and a second node (see Figure 21 and paragraph 0017 [base station comprises multiple gNB-DUs and a gNB-CU]), and functional entities corresponding to the RB comprise one packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity (paragraph 0201 [The DU has a Radio Link Control (RLC) protocol layer, a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer, a physical layer, and the like. Between the CU and DU is a standardized public interface F1, or any other interface]) and more than two radio link control (RLC) entities corresponding to the PDCP entity (see Figures 1-3, 21 and paragraph 0201 [base station comprises at least two RLC entities]), wherein the method comprises: and transmitting, by the terminal device based on at least one of the second status indication information or the third status indication information, PDCP data on a channel corresponding to an activated RLC entity (paragraphs 0160-0162, 0189 [UE 610 may activate the duplication of packets based on receiving the activation message]).
Wang et al. does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the terminal device, second status indication information transmitted by the first node, or third status indication information transmitted by the second node, wherein the second status indication information indicates whether each of more than two RLC entities corresponding to the PDCP entity has been activated, or indicates whether each of at least one RLC entity established on the first node has been activated, and the third status indication information indicates whether each of more than two RLC entities corresponding to the PDCP entity has been activated, or indicates whether each of at least one RLC entity established on the second node has been activated; determining, based on at least one of the second status indication information received from the first node or the third status indication information received from the second node, whether to activate a duplication transmission function of at least two channels corresponding to at least two activated RLC entities.
However, Park et al. discloses the CU and the DU sending separate messages to the UE indicating PDCP duplication configuration and PDCP duplication activation (see Figure 15 and paragraphs 0209-0210 [also; When duplication is configured for a radio bearer by RRC, an additional RLC entity and/or an additional logical channel may be added to the radio bearer to handle the duplicated PDCP PDUs. Duplication at PDCP therefore may consist in sending the same PDCP PDUs twice: once on the original RLC entity and a second time on the additional RLC entity]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize either the gNB-CU can be used to inform the UE a second RLC is activated and PDCP packet duplication is activated. The motivation for this is to enable the UE to activate and receive on its own RLCs for a more reliable transmission.
The references as combined above do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one RLC entity established on the first node comprises at least two RLC entities and the second status indication information comprises:a 3-bit preset field, wherein at least two bits in the preset field each indicate whether one of the at least one RLC entity established on the first node has been activated, and in the preset field, positions of the at least two bits corresponding to the at least two RLC entities established on thefirst node are sorted based on values of logical channel (LCH) identifiers of the at least two RLC entities established on the first node; or status information comprised in an LCH configuration corresponding to each of the at least two RLC entities established on the first node, wherein the status information indicates whether the corresponding RLC entity has been activated.
However, Shi discloses in FIG. 8, the MAC CE format is 1 byte. D7D6 . . . D0 is used to indicate the RLC entity. For example, the DRB of a DRB ID 8 is associated with 4 RLC entities, 4 bits in D7D6 . . . D0 are valid, which may be the last 4 or the first 4. The embodiment of the disclosure takes the last 4 bits as an example for description. If D3D2D1D0=1100, then 2 of the 4 RLC entities are used to transmit the duplicate data, and the other two do not transmit the duplicate data (paragraph 0088) and the correspondence between D3D2D1D0 and RLC may be in ascending or descending order of a logical channel identity (LCID) (paragraph 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the packet duplication activation signaling could comprise a bitmap associated with each RLC associated with the PDCP. The motivation for this is to enable to receiver to determine which RLC entities to activate.
Regarding claims 3, 9, 15, the references as combined disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 7, 13.
However, Shi further discloses wherein the second status indication information comprises the 3-bit preset field, one bit in the preset field s whether one of the at least one RLC entity established on the first node and one of the at least one RLC entity established on the second node have been activated, and in the preset field, positions of bits corresponding to RLC entities established on the first node and the second node are sorted based on values of logical channel (LCH) identifiers of the RLC entities established on the first node and the second node; or the second status indication information comprises status information comprised in the LCH configuration, and the status information corresponds to each of the RLC entities established on the first node and the second node.
Shi discloses in FIG. 8, the MAC CE format is 1 byte. D7D6 . . . D0 is used to indicate the RLC entity. For example, the DRB of a DRB ID 8 is associated with 4 RLC entities, 4 bits in D7D6 . . . D0 are valid, which may be the last 4 or the first 4. The embodiment of the disclosure takes the last 4 bits as an example for description. If D3D2D1D0=1100, then 2 of the 4 RLC entities are used to transmit the duplicate data, and the other two do not transmit the duplicate data (paragraph 0088) and the correspondence between D3D2D1D0 and RLC may be in ascending or descending order of a logical channel identity (LCID) (paragraph 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the packet duplication activation signaling could comprise a bitmap associated with each RLC associated with the PDCP. The motivation for this is to enable to receiver to determine which RLC entities to activate.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 16, the references as combined disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 7, 13.
However, Shi further discloses the second status indication information comprises the 3-bit preset field, one bit in the preset field indicates whether one of the at least one RLC entity established on the first node and one of the at least one RLC entity established on the second node have been activated, Q bits corresponding to RLC entities established on the first node are in a bitmap of Q least significant bits in the preset field, and the bitmap of the Q least significant bits is set based on an order of logical channels (LCH) identifiers-corresponding to the at least two RLC entities established on the first node, and Q is a positive integer; or the second status indication information comprises the status information comprised in the LCH configuration, and the status information corresponds to each of the RLC entities established on the first node and the second node.
Shi discloses in FIG. 8, the MAC CE format is 1 byte. D7D6 . . . D0 is used to indicate the RLC entity. For example, the DRB of a DRB ID 8 is associated with 4 RLC entities, 4 bits in D7D6 . . . D0 are valid, which may be the last 4 or the first 4. The embodiment of the disclosure takes the last 4 bits as an example for description. If D3D2D1D0=1100, then 2 of the 4 RLC entities are used to transmit the duplicate data, and the other two do not transmit the duplicate data (paragraph 0088) and the correspondence between D3D2D1D0 and RLC may be in ascending or descending order of a logical channel identity (LCID) (paragraph 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the packet duplication activation signaling could comprise a bitmap associated with each RLC associated with the PDCP. The motivation for this is to enable to receiver to determine which RLC entities to activate.
Regarding claims 5, 11, 17, Wang et al. further discloses wherein the at least one RLC entity established on the first node comprises at least two RLC entities (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0008 [the transmitting terminal can be a gNB wherein the gNB can include two RLC entities (RLC1 and RLC2)]).
The references as combined disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 7, 13.
However, Shi further discloses wherein the third status indication information comprises: a preset field, wherein one bit in the preset field indicates whether one of the at least one RLC entity established on the second node is activated, and in the preset field, positions of bits corresponding to the at least two RLC entities established on the second node are sorted based on values of logical channel LCH identifiers of the at least two RLC entities established on the second node; or status information comprised in an LCH configuration corresponding to one of the at least one RLC entity established on the second node, wherein the status information indicates whether the corresponding RLC entity is activated.
Shi discloses in FIG. 8, the MAC CE format is 1 byte. D7D6 . . . D0 is used to indicate the RLC entity. For example, the DRB of a DRB ID 8 is associated with 4 RLC entities, 4 bits in D7D6 . . . D0 are valid, which may be the last 4 or the first 4. The embodiment of the disclosure takes the last 4 bits as an example for description. If D3D2D1D0=1100, then 2 of the 4 RLC entities are used to transmit the duplicate data, and the other two do not transmit the duplicate data (paragraph 0088) and the correspondence between D3D2D1D0 and RLC may be in ascending or descending order of a logical channel identity (LCID) (paragraph 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the packet duplication activation signaling could comprise a bitmap associated with each RLC associated with the PDCP. The motivation for this is to enable to receiver to determine which RLC entities to activate.
Regarding claims 6, 12, 18, the references as combined disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 7, 13.
However, Shi further discloses wherein the third status indication information comprises: a preset field, wherein one bit in the preset field indicates whether one of the at least one RLC entity established on the first node and one of the at least one RLC entity established on the second node are activated, and in the preset field, positions of bits corresponding to RLC entities established on the first node and the second node are sorted based on values of logical channel (LCH) identifiers of the RLC entities established on the first node and the second node; or status information comprised in an LCH configuration corresponding to each of the RLC entities established on the first node and the second node, wherein the status information indicates whether the corresponding RLC entity is activated.
Shi discloses in FIG. 8, the MAC CE format is 1 byte. D7D6 . . . D0 is used to indicate the RLC entity. For example, the DRB of a DRB ID 8 is associated with 4 RLC entities, 4 bits in D7D6 . . . D0 are valid, which may be the last 4 or the first 4. The embodiment of the disclosure takes the last 4 bits as an example for description. If D3D2D1D0=1100, then 2 of the 4 RLC entities are used to transmit the duplicate data, and the other two do not transmit the duplicate data (paragraph 0088) and the correspondence between D3D2D1D0 and RLC may be in ascending or descending order of a logical channel identity (LCID) (paragraph 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the packet duplication activation signaling could comprise a bitmap associated with each RLC associated with the PDCP. The motivation for this is to enable to receiver to determine which RLC entities to activate.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0084682) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0098682) in view of Shi (US 2021/0345175) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joseph et al. (US 2019/0253915).
Regarding claim 19, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the first node determines the second status indication information based on first status indication information received from the second node, the first status indication information indicating whether each of the at least one RLC entity established on the second node is activated.
However, Joseph et al. discloses an indication of the determined PDCP duplication configuration may be sent to other CUs and DUs using messages over, for example, X2, Xn, or F1 interfaces (paragraph 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the DUs could send information indirectly to indicate RLC statuses.
References Cited But Not Relied Upon
CN 111314970 discloses the activation indication identifier may be included in the PDCP-config for one or more RLC entities or logic channel or RLC load indicating a certain cell group is activated. the activation indication identifier (denoted as ActivatedPath) may include a cell group indication mark (e.g., represented by cell cellGroup) and/or logical channel indication mark (e.g., represented by cell logicalHChannelList). the cell group indication identifier is used for indicating the cell group, the main cell group (mastercell group, MCG) of the cell group identifier (denoted as CellGroupId) can be 0, and the other value represents the secondary cell group. the logic channel indication identifier is used for indicating activation of the RLC entity (or its associated logical channel) and/or logical channel and/or RLC bearer, the value may be a logic channel identifier LogicalChannelIdentity (i.e., LCH logical channel identification (ID) list or a bit bitmap, each bit in the bitmap corresponds to one logical channel, logical channel can be according to the associated to the bearing or the PDCP entity of the order from big to small or from small to big in turn in the corresponding bitmap each bit (from left to right). For example, in bitmap bit value is 0 of the corresponding RLC entity and/or logical channel and/or RLC load is deactivated (or activated), bitmap bit value is 1 of the corresponding RLC entity and/or logical channel and/or RLC bearer is activated (or deactivated).
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 CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights