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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: improper dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p.8, applicant argues that Loehr does not teach an indication that the UE can activate the duplication function independently based on a survival time measurement, without requiring a HARQ-layer event. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
At [0102], Loehr teaches that the UE may autonomously increase reliability of transmissions, e.g. enabling duplication, based on the survival time. This is done autonomously, i.e. independently, by the UE. Even assuming, arguendo, that Loher does not teach this limitation, since it is in an OR statement, it is not necessary for the limitation to be taught since the other elements of the OR statement are taught by Loehr. The claims remain unpatentable.
On p.8, applicant argues that the UE activates the duplication function based on the UE independently determining that the threshold of survival time is exceeded without receiving a HARQ-layer trigger for said activating when the threshold of survival time is exceeded. Even assuming, arguendo, that Loher does not teach this limitation, since it is in an OR statement, it is not necessary for the limitation to be taught since the other elements of the OR statement are taught by Loehr. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
This is also taught at [0102] by Loehr: the UE 205 increases the transmission reliability by e.g., enabling duplicate transmissions or adapting power control parameters as described in the above embodiments as soon as survival time is exceeded. The claims remain unpatentable.
On p.8, applicant argues that UE provides to the wireless network node, information for an activation of the duplication function or information for a deactivation of the duplication function. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Loehr expressly teaches at [0102] UE 205 informs the gNB 210 when the UE 205 increased the reliability of transmissions by e.g., enabling PDCP duplication or power ramping, and similarly when again disabling the techniques, e.g., disabling duplication or power ramping etc. The claims remain unpatentable.
On p.9, applicant argues that Loehr does not teach the indication element of the preconfiguration information of claims 1 and 8. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the “indication that the UE can activate the duplication independently based on a survival time measurement, without requiring a HARQ-layer event” is part of on OR statement and because the other elements are taught by Loehr, it is irrelevant whether this is taught or not. Second, the claims do not define what is meant by “independent.” The only indication that may inform “independent” is that it is based on a survival time measurement and does not require a HARQ-layer event, both of which are taught by Loehr. Third, the fact that the UE performs the aforementioned steps “autonomously” adequately anticipates the wording of “independent.” The claims remain unpatentable.
On p.9-10, applicant argues that Loehr does not teach the activating step of claims 1 and 8 without receiving a HARQ-layer trigger for said activating. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Loehr teaches at [0102] “the UE 205 may autonomously increase the reliability of transmissions by e.g., enabling duplication or multi-panel transmissions, e.g., based on the configured survival time.” In this passage, there is no reference to an HARQ-layer event having any bearing on the enabling of duplication but only the survival time is relevant. [0085] teaches “according to one further aspect of the first solution, network explicitly configures whether the UE 205 is allowed to autonomously enable duplication for selective packets, e.g., based upon HARQ feedback reception,” however, this HARQ feedback reception is only an example of what may enable duplication. [0102] teaches the embodiment where the survival time is the sole arbiter of whether duplication is enabled or disabled. The claims remain unpatentable.
On p.10-11, applicant argues thot Loehr does not teach the providing step. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
[0102] teaches “UE 205 informs the gNB 210 when the UE 205 increased the reliability of transmissions by e.g., enabling PDCP duplication or power ramping, and similarly when again disabling the techniques, e.g., disabling duplication or power ramping etc.” Provided is the UE transmitting information for activation and deactivation of the duplication and verbatim reads upon the claim limitation. The claims remain unpatentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Independent Claims 1, 8
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loehr (US-20200274654).
As to claim 1, 8: Loehr teaches a method for wireless communication, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a wireless network node, a message including preconfiguration information ([0085] network configures whether UE selective duplication allowed; [0083] timer) and a threshold of survival time ([0101, 102] the UE 205 may be configured with the survival time associated with a radio bearer by the gNB 210), wherein the preconfiguration information comprises at least one of a pre-configured inactive Configured Grant ([0073] configured grant allocated but not activated by the gNB 210121), a pre-configured inactive duplication that precedes activation of a duplication function ([0071, 73, 85] configure whether selective duplication allowed; [0083] timer; [0042] duplicated PDCP PDUs are generated, but not transmitted), or an indication that the UE can activate the duplication function independently ([0037, 85, 102] configure whether selective duplication allowed; [0083] timer) based on a survival time measurement, without requiring a HARQ-layer event ([0051, 101-103] the UE 205 increases the transmission reliability by e.g., enabling duplicate transmissions or adapting power control parameters as described in the above embodiments as soon as survival time is exceeded; no indication of HARQ-layer event); activating, by the UE, the duplication function ([0050, 51] the UE may also do one or more of: autonomously activate PDCP duplication) based on the UE independently determining that the threshold of survival time is exceeded without receiving a HARQ-layer trigger ([0050, 51, 86, 100-103] the UE 205 may autonomously increase the reliability of transmissions by e.g., enabling duplication or multi-panel transmissions, e.g., based on the configured survival time) when the threshold of survival time is exceeded ([0100-103] Therefore, and according to another embodiment, the UE 205 increases the transmission reliability by enabling duplicate transmissions or adapting power control parameters as described in the above embodiments as soon as survival time is exceeded); and providing, by the UE to the wireless network node, information for an activation of the duplication function or information for a deactivation of the duplication function ([0100-102] UE 205 informs the gNB 210 when the UE 205 increased the reliability of transmissions by e.g., enabling PDCP duplication or power ramping, and similarly when again disabling the techniques, e.g., disabling duplication or power ramping etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654) in view of Chin (US-20200413435), Du (US-20200037151).
As to claim 2: Loehr teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the information provided for the activation or the deactivation of the duplication function ([0102] UE 205 informs the gNB 210 when the UE 205 increased the reliability of transmissions by e.g., enabling PDCP duplication or power ramping, and similarly when again disabling the techniques, e.g., disabling duplication or power ramping etc.; [0068, 73, 75] configured grant).
Loehr may not explicitly teach further comprises information about an activating or a deactivating of a Configured Grant, respectively. However, Chin teaches further comprises information about an activating or a deactivating of a Configured Grant, respectively (abstract, [0004, 26] MAC CE, configured grant information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement activating / deactivating CG, taught by Loehr, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chin and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Loehr may not explicitly teach and the information provided for the activation or deactivation of the duplication function is included in at least one of an Uplink Control Information (UCI), a MAC Control Element (MAC CE), or a buffer status report (BSR). However, Du teaches and the information provided for the activation or deactivation of the duplication function is included in at least one of an Uplink Control Information (UCI), a MAC Control Element (MAC CE), or a buffer status report (BSR) ([0166] for control in an uplink, the MAC control element contains a bitmap with one bit per configured radio bearer and/or logical channel instructing a device, e.g., a gateway device such as the eNB 12 or NCE 14 as in FIG. 4, to either turn duplication on if the associated bit of the MAC control element is set to 1 or turn duplication off if the bit is set to 0).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement MAC CE, taught by Du, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Loehr and Du in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loehr (US-20200274654).
As to claim 3: Loehr teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pre-configure inactive duplication comprises a number of radio link control (RLC) entities ([0070] PDCP duplication entity, which is yet to be activated by UE, mapped to multiple RLC entities).
As to claim 11: Loehr teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, by the wireless network node, Quality of Service (QoS) information from Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) ([0101] The UPF and/or AMF may signal to the gNB 210 the survival time associated with a QoS flow), wherein the QoS information comprises a parameter related to a communication services availability target; and the parameter comprises at least one of a value of the communication services availability target, a level value of the communication services availability target, an index related to the communication service availability target, a value of survival time, or a number of survival time triggers allowed in a period of time ([0101]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654), Chin (US-20200413435), Du (US-20200037151) in view of Talarica (US-20190342911), Fakoorian (US-20210051701).
As to claim 4: Loehr teaches the method of claim 2.
Loehr may not explicitly teach wherein, when an activation timer is exceeded. However, Talarica teaches wherein, when an activation timer is exceeded ([0113, 194] The eNB may retransmit the activation/deactivation DCI upon expiration of the timer).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement timer expiration, taught by Talarica, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide a trigger to initiate further actions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarica and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Loehr may not explicitly teach the method further comprises: receiving, by the UE from the wireless network node, a predefined Downlink Communication Information (DCI) including an indication to activate the Configured Grant. However, Fakoorian teaches the method further comprises: receiving, by the UE from the wireless network node, a predefined Downlink Communication Information (DCI) including an indication to activate the Configured Grant ([0165] the base station 105 activates an uplink configured grant via the GC-DCI 205 for retransmission).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DCI CG, taught by Fakoorian, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Loehr and Fakoorian in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654) in view of Fakoorian (US-20210051701).
As to claim 9: Loehr teaches The method of claim 8.
Loehr may not explicitly teach wherein the preconfiguration information comprise a pre-configured inactive Configured Grant, and wherein the method further comprises: activating, by the wireless network node, the Configured Grant by providing a predefined downlink control information (DCI) to the UE. However, Fakoorian teaches wherein the preconfiguration information comprise a pre-configured inactive Configured Grant, and wherein the method further comprises: activating, by the wireless network node, the Configured Grant by providing a predefined downlink control information (DCI) to the UE ([0165] the base station 105 activates an uplink configured grant via the GC-DCI 205 for retransmission).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DCI CG, taught by Fakoorian, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Loehr and Fakoorian in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654), Chin (US-20200413435), Du (US-20200037151) in view of Sato (EP-3751935-A1).
As to claim 5: Loehr teaches the method of claim 2.
Loehr may not explicitly teach wherein, when a survival time timer is reset. However, Sato teaches wherein, when a survival time timer is reset (3:1-5 and restarts the deactivation timer of the serving cell in a case that the configured uplink grant is released).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement timer reset, taught by Sato, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide a trigger to initiate further action. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Loehr and Loehrin a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Loehr may not explicitly teach the method further comprises: sending, by the UE to the wireless network node, a request containing information to deactivate the Configured Grant, wherein the request is included in an Uplink Control Information (UCI) or a MAC Control Element (MAC CE). However, Chin teaches the method further comprises: sending, by the UE to the wireless network node, a request containing information to deactivate the Configured Grant, wherein the request is included in an Uplink Control Information (UCI) or a MAC Control Element (MAC CE) ([0025] In action 106, the UE generates a MAC CE for reporting a CG confirmation indicating whether the configured at least one CG configuration is activated or deactivated (hereinafter “(de)activated) by the (de)activation command)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement MAC CE for CG, taught by Chin, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and allocate or deallocate resources to enable communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chin and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654), Fakoorian (US-20210051701) in view of Sato (EP-3751935-A1), Chin (US-20200413435).
As to claim 10: Loehr teaches the method of claim 9.
Loehr may not explicitly teach wherein, when a survival time timer is reset. However, Sato teaches wherein, when a survival time timer is reset (3:1-5 and restarts the deactivation timer of the serving cell in a case that the configured uplink grant is released).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement timer reset, taught by Sato, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide a trigger to initiate further action. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Loehr and Loehrin a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Loehr may not explicitly teach the method further comprises: receiving, by the wireless network node from the UE, a request to deactivate the Configured Grant, the request being included in an Uplink Control Information (UCI) or a MAC Control Element (MAC CE). However, Chin teaches the method further comprises: receiving, by the wireless network node from the UE, a request to deactivate the Configured Grant, the request being included in an Uplink Control Information (UCI) or a MAC Control Element (MAC CE) ([0025] In action 106, the UE generates a MAC CE for reporting a CG confirmation indicating whether the configured at least one CG configuration is activated or deactivated (hereinafter “(de)activated) by the (de)activation command)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement MAC CE for CG, taught by Chin, into the CG, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and allocate or deallocate resources to enable communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chin and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654) in view of 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). 5G; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) Protocol Specification. TS 38 321, V16.3.0, Release 16, 3GPP, 6 Jan. 2021.
As to claim 6: Loehr teaches the method of claim 3.
Loehr may not explicitly teach wherein, when the number of RLC entities is greater than one: the information for the activation of the duplication function further comprises an identification of each of the RLC entities and an indication of a state of activation or deactivation; and a selection of the RLC entities comprises at least one of an index number of logical channels, measurement results of logical channels, or a list of logical channels. However, TS38.321 teaches wherein, when the number of RLC entities is greater than one: the information for the activation of the duplication function further comprises an identification of each of the RLC entities and an indication of a state of activation or deactivation (6.1.3.32 RLCi); and a selection of the RLC entities comprises at least one of an index number of logical channels, measurement results of logical channels, or a list of logical channels (6.1.3.32 where i is ascending order of logical channel ID).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement RLC entities, taught by TS38.321, into the communication system, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communications. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine TS38.321 and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654) in view of 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). 5G; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) Protocol Specification. TS 38 331, V16.3.0, Release 16, 3GPP, 6 Jan. 2021.
As to claim 7: Loehr teaches the method of claim 0.
Loehr may not explicitly teach wherein the message comprises a radio resource control (RRC) message, which includes at least one of RRCReestablishment, RRCReconfiguration, RRCResume, RRCReject, or RRCSetup. However, TS38.331 teaches wherein the message comprises a radio resource control (RRC) message, which includes at least one of RRCReestablishment, RRCReconfiguration, RRCResume, RRCReject, or RRCSetup (5.3.3; 5.3.7; 5.3.5; 5.3.13; 5.3.15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement RRC, taught by TS38.331, into the communication system, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable configuration of communications. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine TS38.331 and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654) in view of 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). 5G; NR; Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) Protocol for 5G System. TS 24.501, V17.1.0, Release 16, 3GPP, 2020-12.
As to claim 18: Loehr teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the UE, a survival time … from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) ([0101] The UPF and/or AMF may signal to the gNB 210 the survival time associated with a QoS flow)
Loehr may not explicitly teach and a parameter related to the communication services availability … by non-access stratum (NAS) signalling. However, TS24.501 teaches and a parameter related to the communication services availability … by non-access stratum (NAS) signalling (p.221, 5.4.5.3.2 If the delivery of the DL NAS TRANSPORT message over 3GPP access has failed, the AMF may re-send the DL NAS TRANSPORT message over the non-3GPP access).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement CSA, taught by TS24.501, into the communication system, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide information on communication availability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine TS24.501 and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr (US-20200274654) in view of 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). 5G; NR; Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) Protocol for 5G System. TS 24.501, V17.1.0, Release 16, 3GPP, 2020-12.
As to claim 19: Loehr teaches the method of claim 18.
Loehr may not explicitly teach wherein the parameter comprises at least one of a value of the communication services availability target, a level value of the communication services availability target, an index related to the communication service availability target, or a number of survival time triggers allowed in a period of time. However, TS24.501 teaches wherein the parameter comprises at least one of a value of the communication services availability target, a level value of the communication services availability target, an index related to the communication service availability target, or a number of survival time triggers allowed in a period of time (p.285, 5.5.1.3.4 the AMF: a) may provide a new allowed NSSAI to the UE; b) shall provide a pending NSSAI to the UE if the UE has indicated the support for network slice-specific authentication and authorization and there are S-NSSAIs for which network slice-specific authentication and authorization will be performed or is ongoing for the current PLMN or SNPN; or c) may provide both a new allowed NSSAI and a pending NSSAI to the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement CSA, taught by TS24.501, into the communication system, taught by Loehr, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide information on communication availability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine TS24.501 and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 20: Loehr teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the survival time comprises at least one of a value range of survival time in microseconds, a value range of survival time in 500 nanoseconds, or a value range of survival time in terms of services cycle ([0101, 102] the UE 205 may be configured with the survival of a radio bearer by the gNB 210)
It is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters or values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. The burden of showing criticality is on Applicant. In re Mason, 87 F.2d 370, 32 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1937); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. U.S., 320 U.S. 1, 57 USPQ 471 (1943); In re Schneider, 148 F.2d 108, 65 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1945); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Saether, 492 F.2d 849, 181 USPQ 36 (CCPA 1974); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since Loehr already teaches survival time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the value of the survival time, including microseconds, absent a showing of criticality by Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights