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
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 9/15/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18 and 19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Moilanen fails to teach “send[ing], to the second terminal, first state indication information usable to indicate the second terminal to enter a non-working state to not send uplink information but receive downlink information” (Page 15), the Examiner agrees in part.
Moilanen clearly teaches the ability to send information to the second terminal. (Fig. 6 ~ dashed line between UE1 and gNB2 is the configuring and maintaining in an idle state, the secondary reliability group, see Pages 5-6 [0067] and Fig. 7 [4] i.e. activation of the secondary reliability group for UE1 because of the detected failure of UE2)
The issue with the current claim language is that it is a recitation of intended use. The active step “sends” is performed by the base station. The Examiner’s contention is a base station can send “any data” to a first terminal or second terminal. To provide meaning to “any data”, the claim needs to recite receiving, processing and perform a specific action at the second terminal because the data is the first state indication information.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Moilanen fails to teach “the base station further sending one copy of downlink data to the first terminal and the second terminal” (Page 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moilanen teaches “When packets are replicated using End-to-End (E2E) redundancy, lower layers multi-connectivity may avoid additional (unnecessary) redundancy over the same links. Fast recovery in case of a UE failure may be provided with a fast fallback from E2E redundancy (with multiple UEs per device) to lower layer multi-connectivity (with single UE per device)” (Page 6 [0073] and Page 4 [0056])
It is noted that the “or” statement is not required by the claim language.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing unit” and “sending unit” in claim 11 and a “receiving unit” and “sending unit” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See Figs. 8-10 and [00159-00173] for the related description of structure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson 3GPP TSG-SA WG2 Meeting #128 July 2-6, 2018, S2-187316 (From IDS, hereinafter, Ericsson) in view of Moilanen et al. (US-2022/0151005 hereinafter, Moilanen).
Regarding claim 1, Ericsson teaches a method for performing data transmission by wo terminal devices (Page 1 “In the case of multiple UE-based user plane redundancy solution the key requirement is to provide that the different UEs that belong to the same terminal device can use different RAN and CN entities in the user plane.” And Page 2 “The solution will enable a terminal device to set up multiple redundant PDU Sessions over the 5G network, so that the network will attempt to make the paths of the multiple redundant PDU sessions independent whenever that is possible.”), comprising:
determining, by a first core network device, that a first terminal and a second terminal are in a mutual backup relationship; (Page 4 “For handling the reliability grouping of a UE, a new system parameter called UE Reliability Group (UE RG) is proposed to be standardized, and set using one of the following methods or a combination of them: It could be configured explicitly to the UE and sent in a Registration Request message to the network. It could be part of the subscription. It could also be derived from other system parameters (e.g., SUPI, PEI, NSSAI, RFSP) based on operator configuration.”) and
sending by the first core network device, pairing indication information to a base station (Page 4 “The Reliability Group parameter of each UE is sent from AMF to RAN when the RAN context is established, and maintained as part of the RAN context, so each gNB has knowledge about the reliability group of the connected UEs”), wherein the pairing indication information indicates that the first terminal and the second terminal are in the mutual backup relationship. (Page 1 “The selection of different gNBs for the UEs in the same device can be realized by defining Reliability Groups (RG) for the UEs and for the gNBs (on a per cell basis). By grouping the UEs in the device and the cell of the gNBs in the network into more than one reliability group and preferably selecting cells in the same reliability group as the UE, we ensure that UEs in the same device will be assigned different gNBs for redundancy.”, Page 2 “The Reliability Group parameter of each UE is sent from AMF to RAN when the RAN context is established, and maintained as part of the RAN context, so each gNB has knowledge about the reliability group of the connected UEs”)
Ericsson differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting so that in in response to determining, based on the pairing indication information, that the first terminal is a primary terminal and the second terminal is a secondary terminal, the base station sends, to the second terminal, first state indication information usable to indicate the second terminal to enter a non-working state to not send uplink information but receive downlink information, the base station further sends one copy of downlink data to the first terminal and the second terminal, or sends downlink data to the first terminal and in response to the first terminal being faulty sends second state information to the second terminal for the second terminal to enter a working state and act as the primary terminal and sends the downlink data to the second terminal.
In an analogous art, Moilanen teaches a failure recovery for multi-UE device (Abstract) that includes based on the pairing indication information (Page 9 Claim 67, 68 and 60 “transmit to a network equipment a first signal to activate a secondary reliability group for the first user equipment”), that the first terminal is a primary terminal and the second terminal is a secondary terminal (Page 6 [0070-0071] i.e. UE1 and UE2 are linked for dual connectivity), the base station sends to the second terminal, first state indication information (Fig. 6 ~ dashed line between UE1 and gNB2 is the configuring and maintaining in an idle state, the secondary reliability group, see Pages 5-6 [0067] and Fig. 7 [4] i.e. activation of the secondary reliability group for UE1 because of the detected failure of UE2) usable to indicate the second terminal to enter a non-working state to not send uplink information but receive downlink information (intended use, see section 5 above), the base station further sends one copy of downlink data to the first terminal and the second terminal (Page 6 [0073] “When packets are replicated using End-to-End (E2E) redundancy, lower layers multi-connectivity may avoid additional (unnecessary) redundancy over the same links. Fast recovery in case of a UE failure may be provided with a fast fallback from E2E redundancy (with multiple UEs per device) to lower layer multi-connectivity (with single UE per device)” and Page 4 [0056]), or sends downlink data to the first terminal and in response to the first terminal being faulty sends second state information to the second terminal for the second terminal to enter a working state and act as the primary terminal and sends the downlink data to the second terminal. (not required due to “or”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Ericsson after modifying it to incorporate the ability to provide the network with pairing information for the multi-UE of Moilanen since it enables fast recovery of failures by activating the dual connectivity for existing PDU sessions, thereby increasing user satisfaction. (Moilanen Page 6 [0070-0071])
Regarding claim 2, Ericsson in view of Moilanen teaches wherein the determining, by a first core network device, that a first terminal and a second terminal are in a mutual backup relationship includes:
receiving, by the first core network device, registration request messages sent by the first terminal and the second terminal (Ericsson Page 4 “For handling the reliability grouping of a UE, a new system parameter called UE Reliability Group (UE RG) is proposed to be standardized, and set using one of the following methods or a combination of them: It could be configured explicitly to the UE and sent in a Registration Request message to the network” and “The Reliability Group parameter of each UE is sent from AMF to RAN when the RAN context is established,”), wherein the registration request messages are used to request to connect the terminal to a core network; (Page 4 “The Reliability Group parameter of each UE is sent from AMF to RAN when the RAN context is established,”) and
after receiving the registration request message from the first terminal or the second terminal, obtaining, by the first core network device, identification information of the second terminal or the first terminal from a second core network device, and determining, based on the identification information of the second terminal or the first terminal, that the first terminal and the second terminal are in the mutual backup relationship; (Moilanen Claims 67 and 68)
after receiving the registration request message from the first terminal or the second terminal, obtaining, by the first core network device, identification information of the second terminal or the first terminal from the registration request message received from the first terminal or the second terminal, and determining, based on the identification information of the second terminal or the second terminal, that the first terminal and the second terminal are in the mutual backup relationship; (Moilanen [0062] “In one example embodiment, an application or a control entity in the device 200 may detect that UE1 110A does not respond, indicating a failure, and the device 200 may send a trigger to UE2 110B to reconfigure its reliability group to activate use of its secondary reliability group. However, this does not stop the UE2 110B from continuing using its primary reliability group. After the failure detection trigger has reached UE2, UE2 may send a secondary reliability group activation message to the network. The message may implicitly or explicitly indicate the cause due to a UE failure with or without any further UE contexts of the failed UE1.”) or
after receiving the registration request message from the first terminal or the second terminal, obtaining, by the first core network device from an application function AF network element, identification information of terminals in the mutual backup relationship, and determining, based on the identification information of the terminals in the mutual backup relationship, that the first terminal and the second terminal are int eh mutual backup relationship.
Regarding claim 3, Ericsson in view of Moilanen teaches after receiving the registration request message from the first terminal or the second terminal, receiving, by the first core network device, session establishment request information from the first terminal or the second terminal, and sending the session establishment request information to a third core network device, wherein the session establishment request information is used to request the base station to establish, with a fourth core network device, a protocol data unit PDU session shared by the first terminal and the second terminal. (Ericsson Page 3 “Multiple PDU Sessions are set up from the UEs, which use independent RAN (gNB) and CN (UPF) entities. The Figure 6.2.1-2 below illustrates the architecture view of the solution. UE1 and UE2 are connected to gNB1 and gNB2, respectively and UE1 sets up a PDU Session via gNB1 to UPF1, and UE2 sets up a PDU Session via gNB2 to UPF2. UPF1 and UPF2 connect to the same Data Network (DN), even though the traffic via UPF1 and UPF2 might be routed via different user plane nodes within the DN. UPF1 and UPF2 are controlled by SMF1 and SMF2, respectively” and Moilanen Pages 5-6 [0067-0068] and Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 4 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 5 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 3.
Regarding claims 11-13, the limitations of claims 11-13 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 1-3. See additional structure in Moilanen Fig. 1 [190, 175 and 180] for the core network processing unit and sending unit structure.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the limitations of claims 14 and 15 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 4 and 5. See additional structure Moilanen Fig. 1 [170, 152 and 160] for the base station, processing unit and sending unit structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the Examiner was unable to find the combination of claims 4 and 6 or 14 and 16 in the prior art. The Examiner would also note the perspective issues with claims 6 and 16 as aligning similarly with section 5 above and believes minor amendments can correct these issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-12,101,837 to Moilanen et al. which is the patent that goes along with the B reference above.
US-2019/0215190 to Gao et al. which discloses utilizing two virtual extensible local area network tunnels to provide redundancy protection
WO2020/075118A1 to Pradas et al. discloses redundancy transmission from two gNBs to two UEs co-located in a device
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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights