DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application filed 2 November 2023, claiming benefit of CN 202211368270.9 filed 3 November 2022, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed as CN 2022113682709 on 3 November 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Instant Application
Reference Application 18/504,171
A first node for wireless communications, characterized in comprising:
A first node for wireless communications, comprising:
a first receiver, which receives a first message, the first message configuring at least first RLC bearer; and
a first receiver, receiving a first message, the first message being used to configure at least a first RLC bearer;
receives a second message, the second message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are a candidate of multiple radio bearers; and
receiving a second message, the second message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is a candidate of multiple radio bearers; and
receives a third message, the third message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are associated with a first radio bearer; the first radio bearer being one of the multiple radio bearers; and
the first radio bearer being one of the multiple radio bearers.
7. the first receiver, receiving a fourth message, the fourth message confirming that the first RLC bearer is associated with the first radio bearer;
a first processor, which transmits a data unit of the first radio bearer via the at least first RLC bearer as a response to receiving the third message;
a first processor, as a response to monitoring failure of a second RLC bearer, transmitting a first data unit set through the first RLC bearer
5. the third message indicating the second RLC bearer
7. wherein the third message is used to trigger the fourth message; a transmission of the first data unit set is earlier than a reception of the fourth message
wherein the second message is an RRC layer signaling, while the third message is a signaling of a protocol layer below the RRC layer.
wherein the second message is an RRC-layer signaling.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 7 of copending Application No. 18/504,171 in view of Pan et al. (US 2025/0227508 A1), hereafter referred Pan, in view of Bergstrom et al. (US 2021/0153276 A1), hereafter referred Bergstrom cited below. Claims 8 and 14 are found to be parallel to claim 1, therefore the double patenting rejection is applied mutatis mutandis. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Bergstrom.
Regarding claim 1, Pan teaches a first node for wireless communications, characterized in comprising:
a first receiver, which receives a first message, the first message configuring at least first RLC bearer (Pan, [0006]-[0007]; the first network unit receives configuration information from the second network unit, where the configuration information includes a configuration of a first RLC bearer); and
receives a second message, the second message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are a candidate of multiple radio bearers; wherein the second message is an RRC layer signaling (Pan, Fig. 8, [0006]-[0011] and [0237]-[0245]; when the first radio bearer is newly set up, the first network unit may indicate the configuration type of the first radio bearer to the second network unit so that the second network unit determines whether to provide the configuration of the first RLC bearer corresponding to the first radio bearer to correctly provide the configuration of the first radio bearer for the remote terminal device, where the set up of a Uu RLC bearer involves communicating RRC reconfiguration messages).
Pan does not expressly teach receives a third message, the third message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are associated with a first radio bearer, the first radio bearer being one of the multiple radio bearers, while the third message is a signaling of a protocol layer below the RRC layer; and
a first processor, which transmits a data unit of the first radio bearer via the at least first RLC bearer as a response to receiving the third message.
However, Bergstrom teaches receives a third message, the third message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are associated with a first radio bearer, the first radio bearer being one of the multiple radio bearers, while the third message is a signaling of a protocol layer below the RRC layer (Bergstrom, [0072]-[0083]; the wireless device configures the two RLC entities and their associated logical channels, maps the logical channels to first cell and second cell and assigns one of the logical channels as the primary logical channel and the other of the logical channels as the second logical channel for PDCP duplication. At some point in time, the wireless device determines failure of a radio link that supports the secondary logical channel. Upon being notified of the failure of the radio link supporting the secondary logical channel, the radio network node may deconfigure or deactivate PDCP duplication with a message of PDCP-DuplicationFailureInformation that can be transmitted to lower layers); and
a first processor, which transmits a data unit of the first radio bearer via the at least first RLC bearer as a response to receiving the third message (Bergstrom, [0079]-[0083]; in addition to notifying the radio network node about the failure of the radio link supporting the second logical channel, the wireless device may suspend the second RLC entity associated with the second logical channel while keeping the first RLC entity associated with the primary logical channel active, which the wireless device can exchange data of RLC PDUs with the first cell through the primary logical channel that is still active).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to enabling the radio network to define transmission restrictions of each RLC entity flexibly and independently of each other (Bergstrom, [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Pan teaches a second node for wireless communications, characterized in comprising:
a first transmitter, which transmits a first message, the first message configuring at least first RLC bearer (Pan, [0006]-[0007]; the first network unit receives configuration information from the second network unit, where the configuration information includes a configuration of a first RLC bearer); and
transmits a second message, the second message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are a candidate of multiple radio bearers; wherein the second message is an RLC layer signaling (Pan, Fig. 8, [0006]-[0011] and [0237]-[0245]; when the first radio bearer is newly set up, the first network unit may indicate the configuration type of the first radio bearer to the second network unit so that the second network unit determines whether to provide the configuration of the first RLC bearer corresponding to the first radio bearer to correctly provide the configuration of the first radio bearer for the remote terminal device, where the set up of a Uu RLC bearer involves communicating RRC reconfiguration messages).
Pan does not expressly teach transmits a third message, the third message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are associated with a first radio bearer, the first radio bearer being one of the multiple radio bearers, while the third message is a signaling of a protocol layer below the RRC layer; and
a second processor, which transmits a data unit of the first radio bearer via the at least first RLC bearer after transmitting the third message.
However, Bergstrom transmits a third message, the third message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are associated with a first radio bearer, the first radio bearer being one of the multiple radio bearers, while the third message is a signaling of a protocol layer below the RRC layer (Bergstrom, [0072]-[0083]; the wireless device configures the two RLC entities and their associated logical channels, maps the logical channels to first cell and second cell and assigns one of the logical channels as the primary logical channel and the other of the logical channels as the second logical channel for PDCP duplication. At some point in time, the wireless device determines failure of a radio link that supports the secondary logical channel. Upon being notified of the failure of the radio link supporting the secondary logical channel, the radio network node may deconfigure or deactivate PDCP duplication with a message of PDCP-DuplicationFailureInformation that can be transmitted to lower layers); and
a second processor, which transmits a data unit of the first radio bearer via the at least first RLC bearer after transmitting the third message (Bergstrom, [0079]-[0083]; in addition to notifying the radio network node about the failure of the radio link supporting the second logical channel, the wireless device may suspend the second RLC entity associated with the second logical channel while keeping the first RLC entity associated with the primary logical channel active, which the wireless device can exchange data of RLC PDUs with the first cell through the primary logical channel that is still active).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to enabling the radio network to define transmission restrictions of each RLC entity flexibly and independently of each other (Bergstrom, [0073]).
Regarding claim 14, Pan teaches a method in a first node for wireless communications, characterized in comprising:
receiving a first message, the first message configuring at least first RLC bearer (Pan, [0006]-[0007]; the first network unit receives configuration information from the second network unit, where the configuration information includes a configuration of a first RLC bearer); and
receiving a second message, the second message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are a candidate of multiple radio bearers; wherein the second message is an RLC layer signaling (Pan, Fig. 8, [0006]-[0011] and [0237]-[0245]; when the first radio bearer is newly set up, the first network unit may indicate the configuration type of the first radio bearer to the second network unit so that the second network unit determines whether to provide the configuration of the first RLC bearer corresponding to the first radio bearer to correctly provide the configuration of the first radio bearer for the remote terminal device, where the set up of a Uu RLC bearer involves communicating RRC reconfiguration messages).
Pan does not expressly teach receiving a third message, the third message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are associated with a first radio bearer, the first radio bearer being one of the multiple radio bearers, while the third message is a signaling of a protocol layer below the RRC layer; and
transmitting a data unit of the first radio bearer via the at least first RLC bearer as a response to receiving the third message.
However, Bergstrom teaches receiving a third message, the third message indicating that the at least first RLC bearer is/are associated with a first radio bearer, the first radio bearer being one of the multiple radio bearers, while the third message is a signaling of a protocol layer below the RRC layer (Bergstrom, [0072]-[0083]; the wireless device configures the two RLC entities and their associated logical channels, maps the logical channels to first cell and second cell and assigns one of the logical channels as the primary logical channel and the other of the logical channels as the second logical channel for PDCP duplication. At some point in time, the wireless device determines failure of a radio link that supports the secondary logical channel. Upon being notified of the failure of the radio link supporting the secondary logical channel, the radio network node may deconfigure or deactivate PDCP duplication with a message of PDCP-DuplicationFailureInformation that can be transmitted to lower layers); and
transmitting a data unit of the first radio bearer via the at least first RLC bearer as a response to receiving the third message (Bergstrom, [0079]-[0083]; in addition to notifying the radio network node about the failure of the radio link supporting the second logical channel, the wireless device may suspend the second RLC entity associated with the second logical channel while keeping the first RLC entity associated with the primary logical channel active, which the wireless device can exchange data of RLC PDUs with the first cell through the primary logical channel that is still active).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to enabling the radio network to define transmission restrictions of each RLC entity flexibly and independently of each other (Bergstrom, [0073]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, Pan in view of Bergstrom teaches the first node according to claim 1, the second node according to claim 8, and the method in the first node according to claim 14 above. Pan does not expressly teach characterized in comprising: the first processor, which transmits a fourth message, the fourth message indicating a state of the first radio bearer; wherein the fourth message is used for triggering the third message.
However, Bergstrom teaches characterized in comprising: the first processor, which transmits a fourth message, the fourth message indicating a state of the first radio bearer; wherein the fourth message is used for triggering the third message (Bergstrom, [0072]-[0083]; the wireless device notifies the radio network node about the failure of the radio link that supports the secondary logical channel by sending a message in a failure report).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to enabling the radio network to define transmission restrictions of each RLC entity flexibly and independently of each other (Bergstrom, [0073]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, Pan in view of Bergstrom teaches the first node according to claim 1, the second node according to claim 8, and the method in the first node according to claim 14 above. Pan does not expressly teach characterized in comprising: the first receiver, which receives a fifth message, the fifth message configuring a second RLC bearer to be associated with the first radio bearer; and the first processor, which transmits a data unit of the first radio bearer via the second RLC bearer as a response to receiving the fifth message; wherein the fifth message is an RRC layer message; reception of the fifth message is earlier than reception of the third message.
However, Bergstrom teaches characterized in comprising: the first receiver, which receives a fifth message, the fifth message configuring a second RLC bearer to be associated with the first radio bearer; and the first processor, which transmits a data unit of the first radio bearer via the second RLC bearer as a response to receiving the fifth message; wherein the fifth message is an RRC layer message; reception of the fifth message is earlier than reception of the third message (Bergstrom, [0072]-[0083]; upon being notified of the failure of the radio link supporting the secondary logical channel, the radio network node may suspend the second RLC entity associated with the secondary logical channel while keeping the first RLC entity associated with the primary logical channel active and may deconfigure or deactivate PDCP duplication and deconfigure the cell associated with the failed radio link, where the message can be a RRC configuration message that the wireless device received from the radio network node via RRCConnectionReconfiguration message).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to enabling the radio network to define transmission restrictions of each RLC entity flexibly and independently of each other (Bergstrom, [0073]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Pan in view of Bergstrom teaches the first node according to claim 1, the second node according to claim 8, and the method in the first node according to claim 14 above. Pan does not expressly teach characterized in that the third message indicates one of a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) duplication or a data volume threshold; when the third message indicates the PDCP duplication, the at least first RLC bearer is/are used for PDCP duplication; when the third message indicates the data volume threshold, the at least first RLC bearer is/are used for a splitSecondaryPath.
However, Bergstrom teaches characterized in that the third message indicates one of a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) duplication or a data volume threshold; when the third message indicates the PDCP duplication, the at least first RLC bearer is/are used for PDCP duplication; when the third message indicates the data volume threshold, the at least first RLC bearer is/are used for a splitSecondaryPath (Bergstrom, [0072]-[0076]; the message can be the PDCP-DuplicationFailureInformation, where the PDCP-DuplicationFailureInformation has a field failedBearerIdentity, where for DRBs, the identity is provided in the field failedDRB. For SRBs, the identity is provided in the field failedSRB. When maximum number of retransmissions has been reached for a split DRB).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to enabling the radio network to define transmission restrictions of each RLC entity flexibly and independently of each other (Bergstrom, [0073]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Pan in view of Bergstrom teaches the first node according to claim 3, the second node according to claim 10, and the method in the first node according to claim 16 above. Pan does not expressly teach characterized in that the third message is used for deactivating the second RLC bearer.
However, Bergstrom teaches characterized in that the third message is used for deactivating the second RLC bearer (Bergstrom, [0072]-[0083]; upon being notified of the failure of the radio link supporting the secondary logical channel, the radio network node may suspend the second RLC entity associated with the secondary logical channel while keeping the first RLC entity associated with the primary logical channel active and may deconfigure or deactivate PDCP duplication and deconfigure the cell associated with the failed radio link).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to enabling the radio network to define transmission restrictions of each RLC entity flexibly and independently of each other (Bergstrom, [0073]).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 20, Pan in view of Bergstrom teaches the first node according to claim 3, the second node according to claim 10, and the method in the first node according to claim 16 above. Pan does not expressly teach characterized in that the at least first RLC bearer and the second RLC bearer belong to a same cell group, or, the at least first RLC bearer and the second RLC bearer belong to different cell groups.
However, Bergstrom teaches characterized in that the at least first RLC bearer and the second RLC bearer belong to a same cell group, or, the at least first RLC bearer and the second RLC bearer belong to different cell groups (Bergstrom, [0049]-[0054]; the logical channels are established and mapped to different cells, the logical channels are supported by different radio links).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to enabling the radio network to define transmission restrictions of each RLC entity flexibly and independently of each other (Bergstrom, [0073]).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Bergstrom as applied to claims 3 and 16 above, and further in view of Palat et al. (US 2021/0014923 A1), hereafter referred Palat.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Pan in view of Bergstrom teaches the first node according to claim 3 and the method in the first node according to claim 16 above. Pan in view of Bergstrom does not expressly teach characterized in that an RLC mode used by the at least said RLC bearer is identical to an RLC mode used by the second RLC bearer.
However, Palat teaches characterized in that an RLC mode used by the at least said RLC bearer is identical to an RLC mode used by the second RLC bearer (Palat, [0062]-[0066]; at the RLC layers, both RLC AM and UM can be configured for all bearer types MCG, SCG or split bearers, where the UE measures the measurement results on a per cell basis for the bearer types).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Pan in view of Bergstrom to include the above recited limitations as taught by Palat in order to determine if a channel is occupied or clear (Palat, [0098]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416