DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on January 12, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 16/656,208 (U.S. Patent # 10,959,134 B2)(hereinafter refer as Dahod et al. ‘134 B2).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Regarding claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2.
Claim 1 of the Instant Application
Claim 1 of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2
Limitation 1: receiving, by a first base station, data packets from a user device, the first base station including a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to a first radio device;
Limitation 1: A computer-implemented method for coordinating communication of a plurality of data packets, wherein a first base station is communicatively coupled to a second base station, the first base station including a first radio device communicatively coupled to a first baseband unit device, and the second base station including a second radio device communicatively coupled to a second baseband unit device, wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split into one or more portions between respective the first and second radio devices and the first and second baseband devices, the method comprising: receiving, using the first base station, data packets from at least one user device;
Limitation 2: initiating, by at least one of the first base station and a second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the first base station to the second base station; and
Limitation 2: initiating, using at least one of the first base station and second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the at least one user device from the first base station to the second base station; and
Limitation 3: transmitting, by the second base station, a data packet to the user device upon detecting completion of the handover.
Limitation 3: transmitting, using the second base station, at least one data packet to the at least one user device upon detecting completion of the handover by a portion of the packet data convergence protocol functionality of the second radio device.
Regarding claims 2-4, and as applied to claim 1 above, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-4 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims 1,2, and 7 of copending application of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2 by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims.
Regarding claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 12 of copending application of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2.
Claim 6 of the Instant Application
Claims 9 and 12 of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2
Limitation 1: a first radio device; and
a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to the first radio device,
wherein the base station is configured to:
Limitation 1: A system for coordinating communication of a plurality of data packets, wherein a first base station is communicatively coupled to a second base station, the first base station including a first radio device communicatively coupled to a first baseband unit device, and the second base station including a second radio device communicatively coupled to a second baseband unit device, wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split into one or more portions between respective the first and second radio devices and the first and second baseband devices, the system comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to:
Limitation 3: receive data packets from a user device, and
Limitation 3: receiving, using the first base station, data packets from at least one user device; initiating, using at least one of the first base station and second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the at least one user device from the first base station to the second base station; and transmitting, using the second base station, at least one data packet to the at least one user device upon detecting completion of the handover by a portion of the packet data convergence protocol functionality of the second radio device.
Limitation 4: perform a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the base station to another base station.
Limitation 4: wherein handover is performed in at least one of an uplink communication link between the at least one user and at least one of the first base station and the second base station, and a downlink communication link between the at least one user and at least one of the first base station and the second base station.
Regarding claims 7-9, and as applied to claim 6 above, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 7-9 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims 9, 10, and 15 of copending application of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2 by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims.
Regarding claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending application of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2.
Claim 11 of the Instant Application
Claim 17 of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2
Limitation 1: receiving, by the first base station, data packets from a user device, the first base station including a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to a first radio device;
Limitation 1: A computer program product for coordinating communication of a plurality of data packets, wherein a first base station is communicatively coupled to a second base station, the first base station including a first radio device communicatively coupled to a first baseband unit device, and the second base station including a second radio device communicatively coupled to a second baseband unit device, wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split into one or more portions between respective the first and second radio devices and the first and second baseband devices, comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising: receiving, using the first base station, data packets from at least one user device;
Limitation 2: initiating, by at least one of the first base station and a second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the first base station to the second base station; and
Limitation 2: initiating, using at least one of the first base station and second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the at least one user device from the first base station to the second base station; and
Limitation 3: transmitting, by the second base station, a data packet to the user device upon detecting completion of the handover.
Limitation 3: transmitting, using the second base station, at least one data packet to the at least one user device upon detecting completion of the handover by a portion of the packet data convergence protocol functionality of the second radio device.
Regarding claims 12-14, and as applied to claim 11 above, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 12-14 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims 17, 18, and 23 of copending application of Dahod et al. ‘134 B2 by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 4-6, 9-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0302240 A1) in view of Oguchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0076114 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tamaki et al. teach a computer-implemented method for coordinating communication of a plurality of data packets (Fig(s).2A and 2B), the method comprising:
receiving, by a first base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 1C @ 140a, and 2A), data packets from a user device (Fig(s).1A @ 102a, 116, 1C @ 102a, 116, and 2A),
initiating, by at least one of the first base station and a second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the first base station to the second base station (Fig(s).2A @ 226, 5 @ 510, 6 @ 608); and
transmitting, by the second base station, a data packet to the user device upon detecting completion of the handover. (read as packet data is exchanged between target eNodeB and a UE (Fig.2B))
However, Tamaki et al. fail to explicitly teach the first base station including a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to a first radio device;
Oguchi teaches the first base station (Fig(s).1 @ 10a and 2 @ 10) including a first baseband unit device (Fig.2 @ 11) communicatively coupled to a first radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures by network nodes in a communication network.
Regarding claim 6, Tamaki et al. teach a base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 1C @ 140a, and 2A) comprising:
wherein the base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 1C @ 140a, and 2A) is configured to:
receive data packets from a user device(Fig(s).1A @ 102a, 116, 1C @ 102a, 116, and 2A), and
perform a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the base station to another base station. (Fig(s).2A, 2B, 5, and 6)
However, Tamaki et al. fail to explicitly teach a first radio device; and
a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to the first radio device,
Oguchi teaches a first radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14); and
a first baseband unit device (Fig.2 @ 11) communicatively coupled to the first radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures by network nodes in a communication network.
Regarding claim 11, Tamaki et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (read as memory (Paragraph [0138])) having recorded thereon instructions (read as software (Paragraph [0138])) executable by a first base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 1C @ 140a, and 2A) to implement a method for coordinating communication of a plurality of data packets (Fig(s).2A and 2B), the method comprising:
receiving, by the first base station, data packets from a user device (Fig(s).1A @ 102a, 116, 1C @ 102a, 116, and 2A),
initiating, by at least one of the first base station and a second base station, a handover of communication of the data packets from the user device from the first base station to the second base station (Fig(s).2A @ 226, 5 @ 510, 6 @ 608); and
transmitting, by the second base station, a data packet to the user device upon detecting completion of the handover. (read as packet data is exchanged between target eNodeB and a UE (Fig.2B))
However, Tamaki et al. fail to explicitly teach the first base station including a first baseband unit device communicatively coupled to a first radio device;
Oguchi teaches the first base station (Fig(s).1 @ 10a and 2 @ 10) including a first baseband unit device (Fig.2 @ 11) communicatively coupled to a first radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures by network nodes in a communication network.
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 14, and as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, Tamaki et al., as modified by Oguchi, teach a method (Fig(s), 2A, 2B), a base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 114b and 1C @ 140a, 140b, 140c), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (read as memory (Paragraph [0138])) wherein the initiating comprises initiating the handover in a control plane. (read as “A source eNB may initiate a handover procedure (from a control plane perspective) and forward incoming data that has not yet been delivered to the WTRU to the target eNB for eventual delivery to the WTRU (from a user plane perspective) using an X2 or S1 interface. ”(Paragraph [0052]))
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, and as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, Tamaki et al., as modified by Oguchi, teach a method (Fig(s), 2A, 2B), a base station (Fig(s).1A @ 114a, 114b and 1C @ 140a, 140b, 140c), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (read as memory (Paragraph [0138])) wherein the first base station (Fig.1C @ 140a) and the second base station (Fig.1C @ 140b) are communicatively coupled via an X2 interface. (read as X2 interface (Fig.1C @ X2))
Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0302240 A1), in view of Oguchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0076114 A1), and Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2013/0176988 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 7, and 12, and as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, Tamaki et al. teach “Apparatus and methods of handing over a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) that belongs to a group of WTRUs from an originating base station to a target base station …”(Fig(s).1A, 1C, 2A, 2B, 5, and 6; Abstract)
Oguchi teaches wireless base station hardware architecture. (Fig.2)
However, Tamaki et al. and Oguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the first base station and the second base station.
Wang et al. teach a method wherein a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the first base station and the second base station. (read as PDCP Inter-eNodeB multiplexer (Fig.4 @ 413; Paragraph [0074])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the PDCP Inter-eNodeB multiplexer as taught by Wang et al. and the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures by network nodes in a communication network.
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 13, and as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, Tamaki et al. teach “Apparatus and methods of handing over a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) that belongs to a group of WTRUs from an originating base station to a target base station …”(Fig(s).1A, 1C, 2A, 2B, 5, and 6; Abstract)
Oguchi teaches the second base station (Fig(s).1 @ 10b and 2 @ 10) includes a second baseband unit device (Fig.2 @ 11) communicatively coupled to a second radio device (Fig.2 @ 12, 14); and
However, Tamaki et al. and Oguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein:
a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the first radio device and the second radio device.
Wang et al. teach a method wherein:
a packet data convergence protocol functionality is split between the first radio device and the second radio device. (read as PDCP Inter-eNodeB multiplexer (Fig.4 @ 413; Paragraph [0074])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the PDCP Inter-eNodeB multiplexer as taught by Wang et al. and the base station hardware architecture (e.g.: the baseband processing unit) as taught by Oguchi within the base station(s) as taught by Tamaki et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures by network nodes in a communication network.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2014/0153504 A1) teach a method “wherein packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) data is split in a radio access network.”(Paragraph [0193])
Lin (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0327236 A1) teaches “the first PDCP entity of the first base station and a second PDCP entity of the second communications node perform joint processing on the at least a part of data.”(Abstract)
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
December 23, 2025