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 communication is in response to the amendment of 2/17/2026. All changes made to the claims have been entered. Accordingly, Claims 1-5, 11-15 are currently pending in the application and claims 6-10, 16-20 withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of “ receiving, from a base station, information on a configured grant allocating periodic resources for uplink transmissions” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elazzouni et al. (US 12/144028), in view of Alfarhan et al. (US 2023/0337225).
Regarding claim 1, 11, Elazzouni discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (a user equipment (UE) receives a periodic resource allocation along with an indication of a condition for using the periodic resources. For example, the UE may be allowed to transmit on at least one first resource of the periodic resources if the condition is true and activation of PDCP duplication for the UE, col4 lines 46-59 and col28 lines 34-67 and col34 lines 12-col35 line 25 and figure 27), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, information on a configured grant allocating periodic resources for uplink transmissions (A network entity…transmit, via the transceiver, scheduling information comprising a configured grant that conditionally allocates a plurality of periodic configured grant occasions for a first user equipment, col50- lines 40-67 and col52 lines 38-65 and col28 lines 34-47 and col36 lines 1-49 and figure 28)
activating a packet duplication operation in case that an uplink transmission based on a resource allocated by the configured grant in a first cell is not successful (In the case of autonomous PDCP duplication to increase reliability, a conditional configured grant can be activated on SCG upon failure of a first transmission on a MCG and survival state is triggered (e.g., due to a failure to receive critical data or some other trigger) and the system enters the survival state (enable PDCP duplication seen in figure 9) , col 28 lines 35-col29 line 8 and col25 lines 10-41 and col50- lines 40-67 and col52 lines 38-65 and col36 lines 1-49 and figure 28 and figure 9); and
performing the packet duplication operation based on a next resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell and a second cell (The system 1700 include a UE 1702, a master gNB 1704 (e.g., a cell of a master cell group (MCG)) and a secondary gNB 1706 (e.g., a cell of a secondary cell group (SCG)). In the case of autonomous PDCP duplication to increase reliability, a conditional configured grant can be activated on SCG upon failure of a first transmission on a MCG. The retransmission attempt can then be duplicated and sent on the MCG and SCG via the automatic activation of conditional CG and receive data for at least one retransmission of the first transmission, via the transceiver, on at least one second configured grant occasion of the plurality of periodic configured grant occasions, col 28 lines 35-col29 line 8 and col50- lines 40-67 and col52 lines 38-65 and col36 lines 1-49 and figure 28).
Elazzouni fails to disclose wherein it is identified that the uplink transmission based on the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell is not successful, based on at least one of the following conditions: when the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell is de-prioritized by other transmissions; when a dynamic grant resource allocated in a random access response (RAR) message overlaps with the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell; or when the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell is cancelled based on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) scrambled with a cancellation indication (CI)-radio network temporary identifier (RNTI). Elazzouni discloses a conditional configured grant can be activated on SCG upon failure of a first transmission on a MCG (col28 lines 35-46). In a similar field of endeavor, Alfarhan discloses wherein it is identified that the uplink transmission based on the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell is not successful, based on at least one of the following conditions:
when the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell is de-prioritized by other transmissions (The WTRU may determine (e.g., follow a procedure to determine) which of the overlapping transmissions to transmit…based on or after the determination that the transmissions overlap. The WTRU may determine which transmission is prioritized or deprioritized. The WTRU may drop (correlating to not successful) a deprioritized transmission (e.g., discard the grant and/or store the related PDU, if generated for a later time in a HARQ process (re)-transmission)…The WTRU may select which of the overlapping transmissions to transmit based on the determination (e.g., designation) of prioritized verse de-prioritized transmission, [0088] and [0138]-[0141] and [0146])
when a dynamic grant resource allocated in a random access response (RAR) message overlaps with the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell; or
when the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell is cancelled based on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) scrambled with a cancellation indication (CI)-radio network temporary identifier (RNTI).
It 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 to incorporate the concept of dropping a deprioritized transmission (correlating to an uplink transmission being not successful) based upon other transmissions as disclosed by Alfarjan into the method comprising PDCP duplication activation upon failure of a transmission as disclosed by Elazzouni in order to improve the system and provide flexible scenarios of unsuccessful transmissions, such as on the condition of being de-prioritized by other transmissions.
Regarding claim 2, 12, Elazzouni discloses wherein the configured grant is used for a ultra reliable low latency communications (URLLC) service (autonomous activation of PDCP duplication for the UE can help with satisfying URLLC traffic with survival time constraints, col28 lines 46-50 and col40 lines 50-54 and col28 lines32-35).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Elazzouni discloses wherein it is identified that the uplink transmission based on the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell is not successful based on at least one of the following conditions:
when a listen before talk (LBT) operation for the resource allocated by the configured grant in the first cell fails (a transmission fails (for example an LBT failure), col21 lines 5-10 and col27 line 20-48 and col28 lines 46-col29 line 8); or when a downlink feedback information-negative acknowledgement (DFI-NACK) is provided (gNB 904 may transmit feedback (e.g. a NACK) to the UE 902. The UE 902 and the gNB 904 then commence PDCP duplication, col25 lines 28-30 and col13 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 4, 14, Elazzouni discloses further comprising: deactivating the packet duplication operation based on a downlink feedback information- acknowledgement (DFI-ACK)( the gNB 904 successfully decodes the PDU at 12 and optionally sends feedback (e.g., an ACK) at 13. Thus, at 14, an exit from survival state is triggered (e.g., due to successful reception of critical data or some other trigger) and exit survival state correlates to deactivate PDCP duplication as seen in figure 9, col25 lines 32-40 and figure 9)
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elazzouni et al. (US 12,144,028), in view of Alfarhan et al. (US 2023/037225), in further view of Loehr et al. (US 2020/0274654).
Regarding claim 5, 15, Elazzouni and Alfarhan fails to disclose wherein the first cell corresponds to a first logical channel (LCH) and the second cell corresponds to a second LCH, and wherein the first LCH and the second LCH are connected to a common radio bearer. However in a similar field of endeavor, Loehr discloses wherein the first cell corresponds to a first logical channel (LCH) and the second cell corresponds to a second LCH, and wherein the first LCH and the second LCH are connected to a common radio bearer (UE-controlled activation/deactivation of PDCP duplication, one copy of the PDCP PDU goes to a primary RLC entity, while the duplicate(s) of the PDCP PDU goes to secondary RLC entity/entities. Note that each RLC entity is associated with a logical channel (“LCH”) and the PDCP entity (correlating to common radio bearer) 305 is mapped to multiple RLC entities, here the first RLC entity 310 (associated with a first Logical Channel 315) and a second RLC entity 320 (associated with a second Logical Channel 325). Here, the original PDCP data PDU (e.g., initial PDCP PDU) is submitted to the first RLC entity 310, while the duplicate PDCP data PDU is submitted to the second RLC entity 320, [0039] and [0070] and [0075]-[0077] and [0079] and figure 3). It 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 to incorporate the concept of PDCP duplication being associated with a first LCH and a second LCH that are connected by a PDCP entity (common radio bearer) as disclosed by Loehr into the method comprising PDCP duplication activation as disclosed by Elazzouni and Alfarhan in order to improve the system and provide flexible means of duplication, such as via a first LCH and a second LCH.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respects to the objection to the drawings, filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Figures 1, 6 and 7 of Applicant’s specification, illustrated the subject matter of “ receiving, from a base station, information on a configured grant allocating periodic resources for uplink transmissions”. Examiner however respectfully disagrees, as such figures do not illustrate a UE receiving information on a configured grant allocating periodic resources for UL from a base station.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 11-15 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NGUYEN HOANG NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Kwang Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/NGUYEN H NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights