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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims
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] configure whether selective duplication allowed; [0083] timer) and a threshold of survival time ([0101, 102] the UE 205 may be configured with the survival of a radio bearer by the gNB 210); activating, by the UE, a duplication function when the threshold of survival time is exceeded ([0101] 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 ([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.).
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.
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 preconfiguration information comprises at least one of a pre-configured inactive Configured Grant, a pre-configure inactive duplication that precedes the activation of the duplication function ([0085] configure whether selective duplication allowed; [0083] timer), or an indication that the UE can activate the duplication function independently ([0085] configure whether selective duplication allowed; [0083] timer); and 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 parameters 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 parameters 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.
Independent Claim 18
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 a system for wireless communication comprising: an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) that provides a survival time ([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 to a user equipment device by non-access stratum (NAS) signalling. However, TS24.501 teaches and a parameter related to the communication services availability to a user equipment device 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 system 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 system of claim 18, wherein the value of 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