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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026-01-23 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 32-47 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 has been amended. The objection to claim 40 is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 32-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,047,265 to Gebert et al. (“Gebert”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0274654 to Loehr et al. (“Loehr”).
As to claim 36 (and similarly applied to claims 32, 40, and 44), Gebert discloses a terminal (Figs. 1B, 7, 9, 14; Col. 12: lines 10-17) in a mobile communications system (Figs. 1B, 7, and 9; Col. 4: lines 14-18), the terminal comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and a processor (Fig. 14; Col. 12: lines 18-31 and Col. 13: lines 56-63) configured to: receive, from a base station, configuration information for a radio bearer associated with a survival time (Fig. 8, step 23; Col. 8: lines 25-41); and transmit, to the base station, the uplink data based on the PDCP duplication for the radio bearer (Figs. 7-9; Col. 8: lines 25-41 and Col. 9: lines 1-8).
Examiner notes that Gebert also discloses a base station (Figs. 1B, 7, 9, and 13; Col. 11: lines 59-64) in the mobile communications system (Figs. 1B, 7, and 9; ¶24, "cellular wireless system, such as the 5G system"), the base station comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and a processor (Fig. 13 and Col. 11: line 65 through Col 12: line 7) configured to perform the steps of claim 44, which are analogous to claim 36.
Gebert does not disclose: transmit, to the base station, uplink data; receive, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI) indicating a retransmission of the uplink data, wherein the DCI indicating the retransmission of the uplink data is used for triggering a survival time state entry for the radio bearer; in response to entering the survival time, activate a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) duplication for the radio bearer.
However, Loehr discloses: transmit, to the base station, uplink data (¶0055, ¶0068); receive, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI) indicating a retransmission of the uplink data, wherein the DCI indicating the retransmission of the uplink data is used for triggering a survival time state entry for the radio bearer; in response to entering the survival time, activate a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) duplication for the radio bearer (¶0035, "the UE may activate duplication upon receiving a non-toggled NDI for an UL HARQ process carrying a DRB requiring the support of a survival time"; ¶0083; and ¶0096, "In one implementation of this embodiment, one bit in the DCI scheduling an UL HARQ retransmission indicates whether the UE 205 shall enable … duplication. Alternatively, one reserved codepoint of an existing field in a DCI scheduling uplink transmissions or a combination of fields in the DCI indicate to the UE 205 to enable/disable duplication. As described in above embodiments the UE 205 may enable duplication—upon reception of the network signaling ordering the UE 205 to enable duplication—for only one packet, e.g., the TB for which network schedules a retransmission, or for a predefined time period respectively a predefined number of packets"; and ¶0142).
Gebert and Loehr are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: connection management; setup of wireless link connections and manipulation and/or maintenance of established connections; and/or network traffic and/or resource management. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gebert to incorporate the teachings of Loehr to include: transmit, to the base station, uplink data; receive, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI) indicating a retransmission of the uplink data, wherein the DCI indicating the retransmission of the uplink data is used for triggering a survival time state entry for the radio bearer; in response to entering the survival time, activate a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) duplication for the radio bearer. Loehr points out the existing issues of: "in current wireless communication systems the activation/deactivation of PDCP duplication must be triggered by the base station, e.g., by MAC CE signaling from a gNB [and for] high urgency data transmissions requiring ultra-reliability, waiting for the network to react not be fast enough to meet QoS targets" (Loehr, ¶0005). Thus, combining Loehr with Gebert would overcome these issues, allowing for the "support [of] high urgency, ultra-reliable data transmissions" (Loehr, ¶0036) at sufficient speeds to meet QoS targets.
As to claim 37 (and similarly applied to claims 33, 41, and 45), Gebert in view of Loehr discloses the terminal of claim 36, wherein the configuration information is based on information received by the base station from a core network (Gebert, Fig. 1B and Col. 8: lines 15-21).
As to claim 38 (and similarly applied to claims 34, 42, and 46), Gebert in view of Loehr discloses the terminal of claim 36, wherein the survival time is a time that an application consuming a communication service continues without an anticipated message and represented by an actual value of time (Gebert, see Figs. 2 and 3, in which "survival time" is depicted as a length of time; and Col. 5: lines 36-48).
As to claim 39 (and similarly applied to claims 35, 43, and 47), Gebert in view of Loehr discloses the terminal of claim 36, wherein the processor is further configured to transmit, to the base station, capability information indicating that the terminal supports a service with a requirement for the survival time (Gebert, Fig. 9; Col. 8: lines 25-34 and Col. 9: lines 1-8).
References Cited
Gebert, Jens et al. (2024). Selective packet duplication or alternative packet transmission based on survival time (US 12,047,265 B2). Filed 2019-07-03.
Loehr, Joachim et al. (2020). Autonomously triggering retransmission of data (US 2020/0274654 A1). Filed 2020-02-24.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Cho, Heejeong et al. (2020). Method for transmitting quality of service state report by wireless node in wireless communication system and apparatus therefor (US 2020/0236579 A1). Filed 2020-01-13.
Fu, Zhe (2023). Wireless communication method, terminal device and network device (US 2023/0104242 A1). Filed 2022-12-09.
Loehr, Joachim et al. (2023). Apparatuses, methods, and systems for increasing the transmission reliability for transmissions of a duplication bearer in a shared spectrum (US 2023/0284274 A1). Filed 2021-08-04.
Sun, Haiyang (2021). Service continuity implementation method, apparatus, and system (US 2021/0337404 A1). Filed 2021-07-08.
Wang, Min et al. (2022). Controlling data duplication (US 2022/0060283 A1). Filed 2019-11-28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 7am – 4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649