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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 60, 63-65, 67, 69-71, 73-74, and 76-79 have been amended. Claims 1-59 have been previously cancelled. Claim 61 has been cancelled. Claims 60, and 62-79 are pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of claims 60, and 62-79, therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant argues “Liu does not anticipate any of amended claims 60 and 78-79 …Accordingly, both Liu and Purkayastha alone fail to teach or suggest ‘exchanging a control message between the first node and the second node, the control message being indicative of which one of the first node and the second node is to transmit the CE to the radio device,’ as recited in amended claim 60. And because both references alone fail to teach or suggest the same limitation, the combination of these two references necessarily fails to teach or suggest this same limitation.”
Reply
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
[FIG. 5] and paragraph [0153] of Purkayastha teach a handover request and acknowledgement being transmitted between the MN and SN. This acts as the control message between the two nodes. The handover is indicative of which node is to transmit the CE to the radio device because the handover messages indicate to the system which node is going to be in further communication with the radio device, thus indicating which node is going to transmit the CE to the radio device.
Therefore, Liu and Purkayastha teach the claimed features of “‘exchanging a control message between the first node and the second node, the control message being indicative of which one of the first node and the second node is to transmit the CE to the radio device,’ as recited in amended claim 60.”
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 60, and 62-79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20230067164 A1) hereinafter Liu, in view of Purkayastha et al. (US 20210385897 A1), hereinafter Purkayastha.
For claim 60,
Liu teaches a method of transmitting a control element (CE) for or deactivating one or more secondary radio link control (RLC) entities configured for packet duplication in a radio communication between a radio device and a radio access network (RAN), the RAN comprising a first node and a second node ([FIG. 5], a first node with PDCP for packet duplication and a second node, and [0053], the MAC CE dynamically controls whether each secondary RLC entity is activated or deactivated),
wherein the first node comprises a primary RLC entity configured for the packet duplication and wherein the second node comprises at least one of the one or more secondary RLC entities ([FIG. 5], a primary RLC entity configured for PDCP packet duplication in the non-assisting node and two secondary RLC entities in the assisting node),
the method comprising according to control message, (FIG. 12 and [0079], RAN sends MAC CE to UE),
wherein the CE is indicative of an activity state of each of the one or more secondary RLC entities configured for the packet duplication ([0010], message indicating activity state of at least one secondary RLC entity sent to radio device).
Liu does not teach the method comprising: exchanging a control message between the first node and the second node, the control message being indicative of which one of the first node and the second node is to transmit the CE to the radio device;
However, Purkayastha teaches exchanging a control message between the first node and the second node ([FIG. 5] and [0153] a handover request and acknowledgement being transmitted between the MN and SN. This acts as the control message between the two nodes),
the control message being indicative of which one of the first node and the second node is to transmit the CE to the radio device ([FIG. 5] and [0153] the handover is indicative of which node is to transmit the CE to the radio device because the handover messages indicate to the system which node is going to be in further communication with the radio device, thus indicating which node is going to transmit the CE to the radio device).
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 method of Liu for exchanging a control message between a first node and second node with the method of Purkayastha for using a handover request as a control message to indicate which of the first or second node will transmit a CE to allow for faster recovery from transmission failures.
For claim 62, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the second node comprises all of the secondary RLC entities ([0050], indicating activation or deactivation of every secondary RLC requires all secondary RLCs).
For claim 63, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu does not teach the method further comprising
or receiving
wherein the control message triggers the second node to transmit the CE to the radio device.
However, Purkayastha the method further comprising (FIG. 5 and [0153], handover request sent from first node to second node and RRC Connection Reconfiguration triggered by handover to be sent).
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 method of Liu for exchanging a control message between a first node and second node with the method of Purkayastha for using a handover request as a control message to trigger the second node to transmit a CE to the radio device to allow for faster recovery from transmission failures.
For claim 64, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu does not teach the method further comprising the control message from the second node to the first node; or receiving the control message from the first node at the second node; and wherein the control message prevents the first node from transmitting the CE to the radio device.
However, Purkayastha teaches the method further comprising the control message from the second node to the first node; or receiving the control message from the first node at the second node; and wherein the control message prevents the first node from transmitting the CE to the radio device (FIG. 5 and [0153], handover request sent from first node to second node which prevents first node from transmitting the CE to the radio device).
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 method of Liu for exchanging a control message between a first node and second node with the method of Purkayastha for using a handover request as a control message to prevent the first node from transmitting the CE to the radio device by designating that the second node will transmit the CE to allow for faster recovery from transmission failures.
For claim 65, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the control message is indicative of one of:
exclusive control for the node receiving the control message as to one or both of the determining of the activity state of the secondary RLC entities and as to the transmitting of the CE ([0050], SN sends activity state of secondary RLC entities to MN upon request);
no control for the node receiving the control message as to one or both of the determining of the activity state of the secondary RLC entities and as to the transmitting of the CE;
direct control for the node receiving the control message as to one or both of the determining of the activity state of the secondary RLC entities based on received assistance information and/or exclusive control as to the transmitting of the CE; and
indirect control for the node receiving the control message as to one or both of the determining of the activity state of the secondary RLC entities based on sent assistance information and/or no control as to the transmitting of the CE.
For claim 66, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the activity state indicated by the CE for each of the one or more secondary RLC entities comprises either activating or deactivating the respective one of the one or more secondary RLC entities ([0050], MAC CE determines activation or deactivation of each secondary RLC entity).
For claim 67, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches the method further comprising
determining which of the one or more secondary RLC entities is to be activated or deactivated ([0053], determining which of the secondary RLC entities is to be activated or deactivated); and
receiving assistance information from the first node at the second node wherein the determination depends on the assistance information ([0050], information on state of secondary RLC entities transmitted).
For claim 68, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the radio communication between the radio device and the RAN comprises a data radio bearer (DRB), and wherein the primary RLC entity and the one or more secondary RLC entities are configured for the packet duplication of the DRB ([0044], one primary RLC entity and one secondary RLC entity configured for packet duplication of DRB).
For claim 69, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the radio communication comprises a data radio bearer (DRB) ([0044], DRB is present in communication),
the method further comprising ([0045], message sent indicating activation of packet duplication for DRB).
For claim 70, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein each of the RLC entities is associated with one or more of: a different carrier; and a different RLC path ([0044], a different logical channel for each RLC entity).
For claim 71, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein one of the first node and the second node is a master node (MN) comprising a radio resource control (RRC) layer ([FIG. 5], a master node (MN) with RLC entities which require use of RRC layer), and
wherein the other one of the first node and the second node is a secondary node (SN) ([FIG. 5], SN present), the method comprising:
transmitting to the radio device, or receiving from the radio device, RRC signaling for ([0052], RRC reconfiguration message transmitted to radio device); and
wherein the MN provides radio access to the radio device in a master cell group (MCG) or the SN provides radio access to the radio device in a secondary cell group (SCG) (FIG. 5, MN located in in MCG;or
wherein the MN provides radio access to the radio device in the MCG and the SN provides radio access to the radio device in a secondary cell group (SCG) (FIG. 5, MN located in MCG, SN located in in SCG).
For claim 72, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the first node comprises a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity, the PDCP entity being an aggregation point of the packet duplication (FIG. 5, first node has PDCP entity).
For claim 73, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the first node comprises a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity (FIG. 5, node has PDCP entity), the method further comprising
determining a number of the secondary RLC entities configured for the packet duplication;
transmitting, to the second node one or more of: an initial control message indicative of activating the packet duplication;
a number of the at least one secondary RLC entity at the second node;
an initial state of the activity state for each of the at least one secondary RLC entity ([0050], initial activity state for each of the secondary RLC entities); and
performing the packet duplication by the PDCP entity ([0044], PDCP entity for packet duplication).
For claim 74, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the packet duplication is based on ([0048], packet duplication based on dual connectivity (DC)).
For claim 75, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the CE is indicative of the activity state of each of 3 secondary RLC entities or up to 3 secondary RLC entities ([0050], activity state of secondary RLC entities).
For claim 76, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the first node further comprises at least one of the one or more secondary RLC entities (FIG. 5, first node contains secondary RLC entities).
For claim 77, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60.
Liu further teaches wherein the first node further comprises at least one of the one or more secondary RLC entities (FIG. 5, first node contains secondary RLC entities).
Liu does not teach the method further comprising transmit the CE to the radio device, wherein the determination is based on a condition.
However, Purkayastha teaches the method further comprising or initiating determining which one of the first node and the second node is to perform the step of transmitting the CE to the radio device, wherein the determination is based on a condition (FIG. 5 and [0153], handover between first node and second node triggered by MCG failure and RRC Connection Reconfiguration sent after handover).
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 method of Liu for exchanging a control message between a first node and second node with the method of Purkayastha for using a handover request, triggered by MCG failure, as a control message to indicate which of the first or second node will transmit a CE to allow for faster recovery from transmission failures.
For claim 78, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60, with the additional limitation of a controlling node (Liu [FIG. 2] and [0039-40], processor can be a controller for transmitting, and memory for storing instructions).
For claim 79, Liu and Purkayastha teach all of the limitations of claim 60, with the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer readable medium (Liu FIG. 2 and [0095], computer-readable medium for the controller).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Duplication activation/deactivation MAC CE", 3GPP DRAFT; R2-1710304, 3RD GENERATION Partnership Project (3GPP), vol. RAN WG2, page 1, paragraph 2 - page 3; figures 3-5.
"Consideration on the activation/deactivation of data duplication for CA", 3GPP DRAFT; vol. RAN WG2, R2-1704660, page 1- page 2
"Impact of duplication on RLC", 3GPP DRAFT; R2-1800068, vol. RAN WG2, page 2, paragraph 2.2 - page 3
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 Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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 at (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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights