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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s reply, filed on 06/15/2026, to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 03/13/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 21, 24, and 28 are amended. Claims 29, 31, and 35 are canceled. Claims 37-39 are added. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 21, 22, 24-28, 32-34, and 36-39 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome rejection under 112(b), previously set forth in the non-final office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 39 recites “based on the second base station being communicatively coupled to the server”. However, throughout the Spec, it only discloses that the second base station is disconnected from the server. Therefore, the claim introduces a new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 39 recites the second base station is communicatively coupled to the server. However, claim 1, upon which claim 39 depends, recites the second base station is disconnected from the server. Therefore, it is not clear how the second base station can be simultaneously connected and disconnected from the server for processing data, without a disconnection process.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 06/08/2026 has not been considered as to the merits, because the U.S. PATENTS 5410467 and 5555494, and U.S. PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATIONS 20150171759 and 20180123480 in the IDS are irrelevant to the invention. These documents are related to Power Convertor that has no relevance to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 32-35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan; Kathiravetpillai et al US 20150085800 A1, hereinafter Sivanesan, in view of FEHRENBACH; Thomas et al US 20200092685 A1, hereinafter Thomas, and further in view of Kim; Young-Doo et al US 20080045212 A1, hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 28, Sivanesan teaches,
a method (The method as recited below is a well-known method of split bearer in a dual connectivity case in wireless), comprising:
receiving, at a first base station, data from a server based on a request associated with a group of user equipments (Sivanesan [23] “FIG. 1A illustrates an example of a dual connectivity architecture for a master evolved node B (MeNB) and a secondary evolved node B (SeNB). The S1-U may be terminated at the MeNB and the bearer split may occur at the MeNB. … The MeNB may be connected to an Evolved Packet Core (EPC) via an S1 interface. “, [43] “As a non-limiting example, the PDCP layer in the MeNB 402 may receive IP traffic from higher layers (e.g., IP layer or application layer).”, inherently teaches the well-known architecture in 3GPP Wireless, where multiple (=group) user equipment served by a base station can request data from a server via the EPC and receive the data via MeNB (=first base station) base station).
determining, at the first base station, that a second base station is disconnected from the server (Sivanesan Fig. 1A, [23], teaches MeNB (i.e., first base station) is configured to be connected to the core network, while SeNB (i.e., second base station) is disconnected from the core network. Core network is the part of the infrastructure through which servers send user equipment data to the base stations, therefore, MeNB knows that SeNB is disconnected from the server);
causing, at the first base station, transmission of a first data set associated with the data to a first user equipment communicatively coupled to the first base station (Sivanesan [42] “The MeNB 402 may send a first portion of data to the UE 406 over the MeNB radio link.”, teaches transmission of a first portion of data (=first data set) through the first base station to a first user equipment);
determining, at the first base station, a second data set associated with the data to transmit to the second base station communicatively coupled to the second user equipment based on the second base station being disconnected from the server (Sivanesan [42] “As described in further detail below, the MeNB 402 may use the effective data rates for the UE 406 when determining the downlink split ratio. The downlink split ratio may define a percentage of data to be communicated to the UE 406 directly from the MeNB 402 and a percentage of data to be communicated to the UE 406 from the MeNB 402 via the SeNB 404. In one example, the PDCP layer of the MeNB 402 may determine the downlink split ratio for communicating data to the UE 406. … The MeNB 402 may send a remaining portion of data to the SeNB 404 over the X2 interface, and the SeNB 404 may forward the remaining portion of data to the UE 406 over the SeNB radio link. Thus, the UE 406 may support dual connectivity because the UE 406 may receive data from both the MeNB 402 and the SeNB 404”, teaches, in a case of dual connectivity where the first base station knows that the second base station is disconnected from the server, determining at MeNB (=the first base station) the remaining portion of data (=second data) to be sent to the second base station, which forwards the second data to the UE,
causing, at the first base station, transmission of the second data set to the second base station based on the second base station being disconnected from the server (Sivanesan [42] “The MeNB 402 may send a remaining portion of data to the SeNB 404 over the X2 interface).
Sivanesan does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Thomas teaches, a first user equipment of the group of user equipments communicatively coupled to the first base station (Thomas Fig. 2, [108]; Fig. 9, [276], [283]-[284], UE 11 (=first UE) of a group of UEs, comprising UE 11, UE 12A, UE 12B, is communicatively connected to the base station and also communicate locally among themselves, and can obviously be used in the technique of Sivanesan).
Therefore, 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 invention of Sivanesan to include the features as taught by Thomas above in order to provide a solution for an efficient communication between an eNB and one or more UEs within a radio network (Thomas [0023]).
Sivanesan and Thomas do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the first data set is configured to cause the first user equipment to transmit the first data set to a second user equipment of the group of user equipments; wherein the second data set is configured to cause the second base station to transmit the second data set to the second user equipment (These limitations are about a UE receiving data via a relay system, such as a relay station or a relay UE or a Group Manager UE in Thomas above, and directly from the base station. Kim Fig. 3, 330; [47]-[48]; claim 28 “the base station directly transmits first partial data of total data to the mobile station, and transmits second partial data of the total data to the mobile station via the relay station, and the mobile station simultaneously receives the first partial data from the base station and the second partial data from the relay station.”, teaches a UE (=second UE) receiving data via a relay station (=first UE) and a base station that can be a second base station of the claim limitation).
Therefore, 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 invention of Sivanesan and Thomas to include the features as taught by Kim above in order to provide a method of selecting an optimal transmission mode based on a channel capacity of an individual link that is measured by a mobile station (Kim [0003]).
With respect to claim 21, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding apparatus. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 28, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding non-transitory CRM. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method/apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 21 and 28.
Sivanesan further teaches, further comprising: receiving, at the first base station, the first data set and the second data set; and causing, at the first base station, transmission of the second data set to the first user equipment (Sivanesan [43] “As a non-limiting example, the PDCP layer in the MeNB 402 may receive IP traffic from higher layers (e.g., IP layer or application layer). Based on information exchanged with the SeNB 404, the MeNB 402 may determine the downlink split ratio for sending the data (i.e., the IP traffic received from the higher layers) to the UE 406. The MeNB 402 may send 25% of the data directly to the UE 406 over the MeNB radio link and 75% of the data to the UE 406 via the SeNB 404. In other words, the MeNB 402 may send 75% of the data to the SeNB 404 over the X2 interface, and the SeNB 404 may forward the data to the UE 406 over the SeNB radio link”). teaches MeNB has PDCP data comprising first and second data set, and second data is sent to the terminal via the SeNB).
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method/apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 21 and 28.
Thomas further teaches, wherein the first data set is configured to cause the first user equipment to transmit the first data set to the second user equipment using a device-to-device communication link (See Thomas Fig. 2, [108] for UE-to-UE (=device-to-device) communication over PC5 side link for data received from the base station).
Regarding claims 5, 25 and 32, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method/apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 21 and 28.
Sivanesan further teaches, further comprising: causing, at the first base station, transmission of the data to the second base station (see Sivanesan [42]-[43]).
Thomas further teaches, wherein the data is configured to cause the second base station to send the data to a third user equipment communicatively coupled to the second base station, the group of user equipments comprising the third user equipment (Thomas Fig. 7, teaches receiving downlink data directly from the base station by group members, therefore, can obviously be applied to the second base station for sending data to a third UE of the group).
Regarding claims 7, 27 and 33, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method/apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 21 and 28.
Sivanesan further teaches, further comprising splitting, at an internet protocol network layer of the first base station, the data into the first data set and the second data set (Sivanesan [43] “As a non-limiting example, the PDCP layer in the MeNB 402 may receive IP traffic from higher layers (e.g., IP layer or application layer) … the MeNB 402 may determine the downlink split ratio for sending the data (i.e., the IP traffic received from the higher layers) to the UE 406.).
Regarding claim 34, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Kim further teaches, wherein the first data set and the second data set are configured to cause the second user equipment to assemble the first data set and the second data set into the data (Kim Fig 3, 330; [47] “In a spatial multiplexing mode 330, a certain ratio.alpha. of total data is transmitted via the RS 120. A remaining ratio, 1-.alpha., of the total data is directly transmitted from the BS 110 to the MS 130. Thus, a multiplexing gain may be acquired.”, teaches multiplexing (=assemble) of the first and second data is performed at the UE).
Regarding claim 38, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Sivanesan, Thomas and Kim further teach, comprising: receiving, at the first base station, additional data from the server; and causing, at the first base station, transmission of a third data set of the additional data to the first user equipment, wherein the third data set is configured to cause the first user equipment to transmit the third data set to the second user equipment (The teachings of Sivanesan, Thomas and Kim in the rejection of claim 1 with respect to a first data set can obviously be applied to processing additional data set of the claim 38).
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan in view of in view of Thomas and Kim, and further in view of Östberg; Christer et al US 20250133023 A1, hereinafter Christer.
Regarding claims 6 and 26, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 5 and 25.
Thomas further teaches, wherein the data is configured to cause the third base station to transmit the data to a fourth user equipment communicatively coupled to the third base station, the group of user equipments comprising the fourth user equipment (Thomas Fig. 7, teaches receiving downlink data directly from the base station by group members, therefore, can obviously be applied to the third base station for sending data to a fourth UE of the group).
Sivanesan, Thomas and Kim do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Christer teaches, the third base station as recited in causing, at the first base station, transmission of the data to a third base station (Christer [55] teaches multi-connectivity in wireless data transmission, therefore, split data can be transferred via a third station to a UE).
Therefore, 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 invention of Sivanesan, Thomas and Kim to include the features as taught by Christer above in order to reduce the number of failures for a given bearer communication process (Christer [0005]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan in view of Thomas and Kim, and further in view of Yokoyama; Hitoshi US 20130051361 A1, hereinafter Yokoyama.
Regarding claim 36, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Sivanesan, Thomas and Kim do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yokoyama teaches, comprising: receiving, at the first base station, a mapping of the data, wherein the mapping corresponds to a first Internet Protocol (IP) address of the first user equipment and a second IP address of the second user equipment; and causing, at the first base station, transmission of the first data set associated with the data to the first user equipment based on the mapping (see Yokoyama [127]-[128], [130], teaching received data at the base station is separated (=mapped) based on the IP addresses of the UEs and transmitted to the UEs (see para [61]).
Therefore, 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 invention of Sivanesan, Thomas and Kim to include the features as taught by Yokoyama above in order to provide a technique that performs communication by efficiently multiplexing data from a plurality of wireless terminals (Yokoyama [0005]-[0006]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivanesan in view of Thomas and Kim, and further in view of KIM; Taehun et al US 20180139651 A1, hereinafter KIM-2.
Regarding claim 37, Sivanesan, in view of Thomas and Kim, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Sivanesan, Thomas and Kim do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, KIM-2 teaches, wherein the data is associated with routing information generated by the server, and the routing information indicates the first user equipment or the second user equipment (KIM; Taehun et al US 20180139651 A1 KIM-2: claim 1 “receiving, from an application server, downlink data in which an Internet protocol (IP) header including an IP address of a UE has been encapsulated;”).
Therefore, 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 invention of Sivanesan, Thomas and Kim to include the features as taught by KIM-2 above in order to provide a method of efficiently transmitting/receiving uplink/downlink data by a terminal which has limited mobility and intermittently transmits data having a small size (KIM [0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/15/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Remarks: page 3 “However, mere disclosure regarding a downlink split ratio defining a percentage of data communicated to a secondary base station as in Sivanesan cannot be considered to teach or suggest “determining, at the first base station, a second data set associated with the data to transmit to the second base station communicatively coupled to the second user equipment based on the second base station being disconnected from the server,” as recited by independent claim 1, and similarly recited by independent claim 28, and much less “causing, at the first base station, transmission of the second data set to the second base station based on the second base station being disconnected from the server,” as recited by independent claim 1, and similarly recited by independent claims 21 and 28.” And “Moreover, Applicant submits that independent claim 1 includes recitations that occur “based on” certain events. That is, as recited in independent claim 1, “causing, at the first base station, transmission of the second data set to the second base station,” is “based on the second base station being disconnected from the server.” Independent claims 21 and 28 include similar recitations. However, Sivanesan merely discloses “[b]ased on information exchanged with the SeNB 404, the MeNB 402 may determine the downlink split ratio for sending the data.” Id. at para. 43. Moreover, Sivanesan discloses “send a remaining portion of data from the MeNB to the UE via the SeNB according to the downlink split ratio.” Id. at claim 1. Thus, the data of Sivanesan is sent specifically based on the downlink split ratio and not based on the secondary base station being disconnected from a network. As such, Sivanesan fails to teach or suggest “causing, at the first base station, transmission of the second data set to the second base station based on the second base station being disconnected from the server,” as recited by independent claim 1, and similarly recited by independent claims 21 and 28”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sivanesan discloses a radio network architecture where a first base station (BS) is connected to the core network (CN), and a second base station is not connected to the core network, instead the second BS is connected to the first BS. CN is the network infrastructure via which other external entities like application servers communicate with UEs. Therefore, the server is disconnected from the second BS for communication connection perspective. This configuration is known in the art as a type of dual-connectivity (DC), whereby UEs receive data via both the BSs simultaneously wherein data to and from the server is processed only by the first BS. Based on the DC configuration, the first BS routes some data to the second BS. Similarly, for data from the UE to the server, data from the second BS passes through the first BS. It is primarily the result of the DC configuration, due to which first BS realizes that the second BS has no connection to the server i.e., the second BS is disconnected from the server, and forwards some data (i.e., second data set) to the second BS. Splitting data in a ratio between the first BS and the second BS is a secondary technique for data transfer efficiency over the radio.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ODE, US 20110244788 A1 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, para [115].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights