DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed February 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 7, 14, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 9, 2026 has been entered.
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 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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG et al. (hereinafter Cheng) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0352750 A1) in view of Parkvall et al. (hereinafter Parkvall) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0126726 A1), and further in view of ZHENG et al. (hereinafter Zheng) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0283411 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Cheng teaches a method and a first node (base station, 105-l, figures 7 and 14) for wireless communications, comprising: a first transmitter (transmitter, figure 14) operatively coupled to a first processor (communication manager, figure 14), the transmitter and processor configured to transmit a first data unit set via a first air interface; a first receiver (receiver, figure 14) operatively coupled to the first processor (communication manager, figure 14), the receiver and processor configured to receive a first message (MAC message) via the first air interface, the first message being used to determine that at least the first data unit set is correctly received; the first processor (manager, figure 14) and transmitter configured to transmit the first data unit set to a second node (base station, 105-m, figure 7) through a first backhaul link (backhaul link), wherein the first data unit set is transmitted through an Xn user plane (Xn-U interface) of the first backhaul link ([0123]; “…communicate with one another over backhaul links 134 (e.g., via an X2, Xn, or other interface) either directly (e.g., directly between base stations 105) or indirectly…”; [0157]; “…establish a backhaul link 134-a (e.g., via an X2, Xn, or other interface)…”; teaches transmitting the data unit set through the backhaul link via the Xn interface); and the first transmitter and processor configured to transmit a second message (MAC message) via a second air interface, the second message being used to indicate the first data unit set ([0110]; [0136]; [0137]; [0247]; [0248]; teaches a first base station transmitting a first data set to the second base station via an air interface and determining based on HARQ/ACK whether the data unit was correctly received and then further transmitting a message via another air interface to indicate the data unit).
However, Cheng may not explicitly disclose wherein the second node is co-located with a receiver of the second message, and the second node and the receiver of the second message are respectively not co-located with a transmitter of the first message.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Parkvall teaches and suggests wherein the second node is co-located with a receiver of the second message, and the second node and the receiver of the second message are respectively not co-located with a transmitter of the first message ([0426]; [1504]; “…both ideal and non-ideal backhaul and can thus operate in both co-located and non-co-located deployments. Still some of the same coordination features as for lower layer integration can be supported, e.g., load balancing, user plane aggregation, control plane diversity, coordinated RAT scheduling…access can be selected per PDCP PDU and RLC retransmissions are access specific…”; teaches the base station is co-located with the receiver of the PDCP PDU and not co-located with the transmitter of the PDCP PDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the base station is co-located with the receiver of the PDCP PDU and not co-located with the transmitter of the PDCP PDU as taught by Parkvall with the method and node as disclosed by Cheng for the purpose of self-backhauling access nodes in a 5G network, as suggested by Parkvall.
However, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall, may not explicitly disclose wherein the first message is a Radio Link Control (RLC) message or a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) message (although Cheng does suggest transmitting an HARQ feedback indicating data is correctly received).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches and suggests wherein the first message is a Radio Link Control (RLC) or a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) message, the first message being used to determine that at least the first data unit set is correctly received ([0339]; “…the feedback from the receiving device(s), such as in a PDCP status PDU (e.g., a status report indicating HARQ information, or more simply report). For example, the status report may be received that indicates the quantity of sub-PDUs that the receiving device decoded…”; [0402]; “…the PDCP status PDU may include a bitmap to indicate missing PDCP SDUs or correctly received PDCP SDUs. For example, the bitmap may indicate which SDUs are missing and which SDUs are correctly received by the receiving device…”; [0418]; [0419]; [0421]; “…A Bitmap field 940 may indicate PDCP SDUs that are missing from the receiver or correctly received or assembled at the receiver. In some cases, a bitmap field 940 may include a bitmap that indicates the PDCP SDUs in relation to the ACK SN 930 field. For example, bitmap 940-a may indicate PDCP SDUs that have been correctly received by the receiver…”; teaches transmitting PDCP SDU messages in order to determine that first data units are correctly received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transmitting PDCP SDU messages in order to determine that first data units are correctly received as taught by Zheng with the method and node for transmitting message between a first and second base station as disclosed by Cheng, as modified by Parkvall, for the purpose of dynamically adjusting code rate using the rateless code, as suggested by Zheng.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, further teaches and suggests receiving a third message via the second air interface, the third message being used to determine that at least a second data unit set is correctly received; determining whether at least one data unit in the second data unit set is transmitted via the first air interface according to at least the third message; wherein the second data unit set is transmitted by the first processor to the second node through the first backhaul link ([0110]; [0136]; [0137]; [0247]; [0248]; teaches receiving a HARQ/ACK for whether the data unit was correctly received and then further transmitting a data units via the backhaul).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, further teaches and suggests the first transmitter, transmitting a first signaling via the first air interface, the first signaling being used to indicate that a data unit belonging to a first radio bearer is simultaneously received from the first node and the second node; wherein the first data unit set belongs to the first radio bearer ([0109]; [0162]; teaches maintaining and receiving data units via data radio bearers).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Cheng teaches a method and a second node (base station, 105-m, figures 7 and 14) for wireless communications, comprising: a fourth processor (manager, figure 14) operatively connected to a second receiver, the fourth processor and second receiver configured to receive a first data unit set from a first node (base station, 105-l, figure 7) through a first backhaul link (backhaul link), wherein the first data unit set is transmitted through an Xn user plane (Xn-U interface) of the first backhaul link ([0123]; “…communicate with one another over backhaul links 134 (e.g., via an X2, Xn, or other interface) either directly (e.g., directly between base stations 105) or indirectly…”; [0157]; “…establish a backhaul link 134-a (e.g., via an X2, Xn, or other interface)…”; teaches transmitting the data unit set through the backhaul link via the Xn interface); the fourth processor and second receiver (receiver, figure 14) configured to receive a second message (MAC message) via a second air interface, the second message being used to indicate the first data unit set; wherein at least the first data unit set is transmitted by the first node via a first air interface; a first message (MAC message) is received by the first node via the first air interface, and the first message is used to determine that at least the first data unit set is correctly received ([0110]; [0136]; [0137]; [0247]; [0248]; teaches a first base station transmitting a first data set to the second base station via an air interface and determining based on HARQ/ACK whether the data unit was correctly received and then further transmitting a message via another air interface to indicate the data unit).
However, Cheng may not explicitly disclose the first node and a transmitter of the second message are co-located; the second node and a transmitter of the first message are not co-located.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Parkvall teaches and suggests the first node and a transmitter of the second message are co-located; the second node and a transmitter of the first message are not co-located ([0426]; [1504]; “…both ideal and non-ideal backhaul and can thus operate in both co-located and non-co-located deployments. Still some of the same coordination features as for lower layer integration can be supported, e.g., load balancing, user plane aggregation, control plane diversity, coordinated RAT scheduling…access can be selected per PDCP PDU and RLC retransmissions are access specific…”; teaches the base station is co-located with the receiver of the PDCP PDU and not co-located with the transmitter of the PDCP PDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the base station is co-located with the receiver of the PDCP PDU and not co-located with the transmitter of the PDCP PDU as taught by Parkvall with the method and node as disclosed by Cheng for the purpose of self-backhauling access nodes in a 5G network, as suggested by Parkvall.
However, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall, may not explicitly disclose wherein the first message is a Radio Link Control (RLC) or a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) message (although Cheng does suggest transmitting an HARQ feedback indicating data is correctly received).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches and suggests wherein the first message is a Radio Link Control (RLC) or a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) message, the first message being used to determine that at least the first data unit set is correctly received ([0339]; “…the feedback from the receiving device(s), such as in a PDCP status PDU (e.g., a status report indicating HARQ information, or more simply report). For example, the status report may be received that indicates the quantity of sub-PDUs that the receiving device decoded…”; [0402]; “…the PDCP status PDU may include a bitmap to indicate missing PDCP SDUs or correctly received PDCP SDUs. For example, the bitmap may indicate which SDUs are missing and which SDUs are correctly received by the receiving device…”; [0418]; [0419]; [0421]; “…A Bitmap field 940 may indicate PDCP SDUs that are missing from the receiver or correctly received or assembled at the receiver. In some cases, a bitmap field 940 may include a bitmap that indicates the PDCP SDUs in relation to the ACK SN 930 field. For example, bitmap 940-a may indicate PDCP SDUs that have been correctly received by the receiver…”; teaches transmitting PDCP SDU messages in order to determine that first data units are correctly received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transmitting PDCP SDU messages in order to determine that first data units are correctly received as taught by Zheng with the method and node for transmitting message between a first and second base station as disclosed by Cheng, as modified by Parkvall, for the purpose of dynamically adjusting code rate using the rateless code, as suggested by Zheng.
Regarding claim 8, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, further teaches and suggests a second transmitter, transmitting a third message via the second air interface, the third message being used to determine that at least a second data unit set is correctly received; wherein at least the third message is used to determine whether at least one data unit in the second data unit set is transmitted by the first node via the first air interface; the second data unit set is transmitted by the first node to the second node through the first backhaul link ([0110]; [0136]; [0137]; [0247]; [0248]; teaches receiving a HARQ/ACK for whether the data unit was correctly received and then further transmitting a data units via the backhaul).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, further teaches and suggests wherein a first signaling is transmitted by the first node via the first air interface, the first signaling being used to indicate that a data unit belonging to a first radio bearer is simultaneously received from the first node and the second node; wherein the first data unit set belongs to the first radio bearer; a receiver of the first signaling and the transmitter of the first message are co-located ([0109]; [0162]; teaches maintaining and receiving data units via data radio bearers).
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG et al. (hereinafter Cheng) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0352750 A1) in view of Parkvall et al. (hereinafter Parkvall) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0126726 A1) and ZHENG et al. (hereinafter Zheng) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0283411 A1), and further in view of Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0044784 A1)
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 16, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, discloses transmitting message between a first and second base station, but may not explicitly disclose transmitting a fourth message through the first backhaul link, the fourth message being used to indicate a first candidate resource set; wherein resources occupied by transmitting the second message belong to the first candidate resource set.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches and suggests transmitting a fourth message through the first backhaul link, the fourth message being used to indicate a first candidate resource set; wherein resources occupied by transmitting the second message belong to the first candidate resource set ([0144]; [0158]; [0160]; [0266]; teaches a message indicating a candidate resource set and indicating resources occupied by the resource set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate indicating a candidate resource set as taught by Yang with the method and node as disclosed by Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, for the purpose communicating candidate source sets in order to increase reliability of low latency transmission, as suggested by Yang.
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 17, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, discloses transmitting message between a first and second base station, but may not explicitly disclose receiving a fifth message through the first backhaul link, and the fifth message being a response to the fourth message; wherein the fifth message is used to indicate a second candidate resource set, the second candidate resource set is a subset of the first candidate resource set, and the second candidate resource set is reserved for a transmission via the second air interface.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches and suggests receiving a fifth message through the first backhaul link, and the fifth message being a response to the fourth message; wherein the fifth message is used to indicate a second candidate resource set, the second candidate resource set is a subset of the first candidate resource set, and the second candidate resource set is reserved for a transmission via the second air interface ([0144]; [0158]; [0160]; [0266]; teaches a message indicating a candidate resource set and indicating resources occupied by the resource set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate indicating a candidate resource set as taught by Yang with the method and node as disclosed by Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, for the purpose communicating candidate source sets in order to increase reliability of low latency transmission, as suggested by Yang.
Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG et al. (hereinafter Cheng) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0352750 A1) in view of Parkvall et al. (hereinafter Parkvall) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0126726 A1) and ZHENG et al. (hereinafter Zheng) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0283411 A1), and further in view of XIAO et al. (hereinafter Xiao) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0352643 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 18, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, discloses transmitting message between a first and second base station, but may not explicitly disclose wherein a first data unit is used to determine time-domain resources occupied by transmitting the second message; wherein the first data unit is a data unit with a minimum sequence number in the first data unit set.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Xiao teaches and suggests wherein a first data unit (PDCP SDU) is used to determine time-domain resources occupied by transmitting the second message; wherein the first data unit is a data unit with a minimum sequence number in the first data unit set ([0017]; [0026]; teaches the first data unit used to determine time-domain resources and the data unit comprises a minimum sequence number).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first data unit used to determine time-domain resources and the data unit comprises a minimum sequence number as taught by Xiao with the method and node as disclosed by Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, for the purpose managing PDCP SDUs in dual connectivity deployment, as suggested by Xiao.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Consider claim 1, Applicant argues, on page 9 of the Remarks, that Cheng, Parkvall, and Zheng do not teach or suggest “wherein the first data unit set is transmitted through an Xn user plane (Xn-U interface) of the first backhaul link”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's argument because as recited in the above rejections, Cheng, as modified by Parkvall and Zheng, still teaches and suggests wherein the first data unit set is transmitted through an Xn user plane (Xn-U interface) of the first backhaul link.
Cheng clearly teaches transmitting the data unit set through the backhaul link via the Xn interface (“…communicate with one another over backhaul links 134 (e.g., via an X2, Xn, or other interface) either directly (e.g., directly between base stations 105) or indirectly…”; “…establish a backhaul link 134-a (e.g., via an X2, Xn, or other interface)…”). Therefore, despite Applicant’s arguments and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the combination of Cheng, Parkvall, and Zheng, and more specifically Cheng, still teaches and suggests wherein the first data unit set is transmitted through an Xn user plane (Xn-U interface) of the first backhaul link.
Applicants are reminded that claims subject to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As a matter of fact, the "examiner has the duty of police claim language by giving it the broadest reasonable interpretation." Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P., 65 USPQ2d 1862, 1830, (Fed. Cir. 2003). Applicants are also reminded that claimed subject matter not the specification, is the measure of the invention. Disclosure contained in the specification cannot be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d, 155 USPQ 687 (1986).
For independent claims 7, 14, and 20, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's argument for at least the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to claim 1.
For dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 15-19, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's argument for at least the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to claims 1, 7, and 14, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
March 7, 2026