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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 21, 28, 31, 35, and 36 are amended. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 21, 22, 24-29, and 31-36 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’ amendment has overcome claim objections, previously set forth in the last office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 21, 22, 24-29, and 31-36 are 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.
Independent Claims 1, 21 and 28 recites “the second base station communicatively coupled to the first user equipment … the second base station to transmit the second data set to the second user equipment”, which is not understood. It is not clear about the second base station sending data to the second user equipment while it is communicatively connected to the first user equipment, implying no connection to the second user equipment. Other claims are subjected to the same rejection because of their dependency on the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 21-22, 24-25, 27-29, and 31-35 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 first 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, 22 and 29, 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, 24 and 31, 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 via 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 35, 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 is a first portion of the data and the second portion of the data (see Kim 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”).
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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].
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 2472