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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to claims 1-14 and 18-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-14 and 18-19 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-14 and 18-19 are indicated as allowable below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 15-17 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Luo in view of Gupta does not teach the amended limitations of claim 15 (see Applicant’s Arguments p. 11 sec. 1). However, claim 15 has not been amended, therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant further argues that there is no motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system comprising first and second centralized units controlling respective units as disclosed by Gupta with the teachings of Luo. Specifically, Applicant argues that claim 1 (and similarly claim 15) defines a scenario where the same one wireless node is scheduled by the first serving node and the second serving node, where the first serving node and the second serving node are controlled by different centralized units, wherein the objective technical problem to be solved by claim 1 is how to reduce or avoid collision in scheduling in such scenario. However, in contrast, Gupta at Fig. 11a merely makes note of the implementation of the split SRBs but does not mention resource allocation collision between two links from same one wireless node to two respective serving nodes. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine Luo with Gupta. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes 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, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Gupta discloses X2-C may provide load management functionality as well as inter-cell interference coordination functionality (Gupta ¶ 0063). Additionally Gupta sheet 9, Fig. 6-1 shows a first CU in communication with second CU over X2-C interface. Therefore, Gupta teaches a first and second centralized unit may communicate with each other over an control plane to perform inter-cell interference coordination, wherein the disclosed system will improve latency, improve reliability, reduce device power consumption, better resource utilization and faster mobility due to the ability to provide a faster response to changing channel conditions. Therefore, Applicant’s Arguments are not persuasive.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2019/0373627 A1; cited in Applicant’s IDS submitted 04/19/2024; “Luo”) in view of Gupta et al. (US 2022/0345938 A1; “Gupta”).
Regarding claim 15, Luo teaches an information transmission method, comprising:
obtaining, by a wireless node, resource collision information between a first serving node and a second serving node [Luo ¶ 0114, Fig. 5: the UE 115-e may receive downlink reference signals from the serving cell and from neighbor cells. The UE 115-e may measure (e.g., detect) the quality of the beam]; and
sending, by the wireless node, a third message carrying the resource collision information to a first centralized unit [Luo ¶ 0114: UE reports the measurement information to the CU], or
sending a fourth message carrying the resource collision information to a second centralized unit, or
sending a fifth message carrying the resource collision information to the first serving node [Luo ¶ 0118: DU 510 (i.e. first serving node) may determine the tentative SPI based on L1/L2 reports (e.g., channel state information (CSI) reports, buffer status reports, etc.) from UEs within the respective cell of the DU 510 (i.e. UE transmits report to DU)], or
sending a sixth message carrying the resource collision information to the second serving node [Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative, therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
wherein the resource configuration coordination information comprises one of the following [Examiner’s Note: the following limitations are written in the alternative, therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references]:
a time-frequency resource for a distributed unit of the wireless node [Luo ¶ 0050: SPI may specify a pattern of scheduling states, i.e., beam indices, over a period of time (i.e. time/frequency resources), to be used by the one or more scheduling nodes to schedule communication resources for one or more UEs in the network; ¶ 0138: DU’s may schedule the one or more UEs according to updated SPI];
a multiplexing scheduling mode between a link from the wireless node to the first serving node that is for scheduling the wireless node and a link from the wireless node to the second serving node that is for scheduling the wireless node;
a duplexing mode between a link from the wireless node to the first serving node that is for scheduling the wireless node and a link from the wireless node to the second serving node that is for scheduling the wireless node; or
a link direction corresponding to a time-frequency resource [Luo ¶ 0102: SPI information may coordinate scheduling via distribution of scheduling states such as scheduling information states, flexible states, hard states, soft states, NULL or not available states, wherein DU may be configured with, for example, the following resource types: hard downlink, hard uplink, hard flexible, not available (N.A.), soft downlink, soft uplink, and soft flexible (i.e. resources with respective link directions)].
However, Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein a first serving node and the second serving node are configured to schedule the same wireless node, the first serving node is controlled by the first centralized unit, and the second serving node is controlled by the second centralized unit.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Gupta teaches wherein a first serving node and the second serving node are configured to schedule the same wireless node, the first serving node is controlled by the first centralized unit, and the second serving node is controlled by the second centralized unit [Gupta Fig. 11a (see sheet 9, labeled as Figure 6-1) shows Cellular DU (i.e. first serving node associated with Cellular CU) and WLAN DU (i.e. second serving node associated with WLAN CU) in communication with same UE], the first serving node is controlled by the first centralized unit, and the second serving node is controlled by the second centralized unit [Gupta ¶ 0250: Both the Master Node CU (the Control Plane anchor) and the Secondary Node CU can have UP connectivity with the 5G Core for MN bearers and SN bearers, wherein the MM CU is associated with a cellular network and SN CU is associated with a WLAN network].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determining and sending coordination information from a first CU to a second CU that includes time frequency resources for a distributed unit of a wireless node as taught by Luo with the communication system containing first and second centralized units controlling respective distributed units in communication with a user equipment over a split bearer as taught by Gupta. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve latency, reliability, resource utilization, power consumption, and mobility [Gupta ¶ 0041].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Gupta in view of Karandikar et al. (US 20121/0112616 A1; “Karandikar”).
Regarding claim 20, Luo in view of Gupta teaches the method according to claim 15 performed by a wireless node [see rejection of claim 15 above], however, does not teach an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor, to implement methods performed by a wireless node.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Karandikar teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor, to implement methods performed by a wireless node [Karandikar ¶ 0034: E 204 can include one or more processors/Central Processing Units (CPUs), a memory, a transceiver, and so on, for performing at least one intended function/operation; ¶ 0127: embodiments can be implemented through at least one software program running on at least one hardware device and performing network management functions].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of determining and sending coordination information from a first CU to a second CU as taught by Luo with a UE comprising a memory storing instruction to cause a processor to implement inter CU coordination as taught by Karandikar. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide a mechanism for a UE to achieve multi-connectivity with the 5G NR and the WLAN [Karandikar ¶ 0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 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.
Claims 1-14 and 18-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With respect to claim 1, the limitations “wherein the resource configuration coordination information comprises a time-frequency resource of the first serving node for scheduling the wireless node; a duplexing mode between a link from the wireless node to the first serving node that is for scheduling the wireless node and a link from the wireless node to the second serving node that is for scheduling the wireless node; and a link direction corresponding to a time-frequency resource” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim are not found in the prior art, therefore, claim 1 is allowed. Claim 9 recites similar limitations as those of claim 1, therefore, claim 9 is allowed for similar reasons as stated above. Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 18-19 depend from an allowed claim, therefore, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 18-19 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P COX whose telephone number is (571)272-2728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/BRIAN P COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474