Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7 are drawn a method performed by a relay node, the method comprising measuring, by the relay node, a delay time until untransmitted data to be transmitted to a parent node of the relay node via a logical channel is transferred to the relay node; and allocating, by the relay node, a resource for data transmission to the logical channel, based on the delay time. This is classified in CPC group H04B7 subgroup 15542. Figure 12 discloses the embodiment described in claims 1-7.
II. Claims 8-9 are drawn to a method performed by a first relay node and a second relay node, the communication control method comprising: calculating, by the first relay node being a child node of the second relay node, a delay value of a packet stored in a transmission buffer; transmitting, by the first relay node, the delay value to the second relay node by using a buffer status report (BSR); and allocating, by the second relay node, a radio resource to the first relay node, based on the delay value. This is classified in CPC group H04W84 subgroup 047. Figure 18 discloses the embodiment described in claims 8-9.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as measuring, by the relay node, a delay time until untransmitted data to be transmitted to a parent node of the relay node via a logical channel is transferred to the relay node; and allocating, by the relay node, a resource for data transmission to the logical channel, based on the delay time, classified in CPC group H04B7 subgroup 15542. In the instant case subcombination II has a separate utility from the subcombination I such as calculating, by the first relay node being a child node of the second relay node, a delay value of a packet stored in a transmission buffer; transmitting, by the first relay node, the delay value to the second relay node by using a buffer status report (BSR); and allocating, by the second relay node, a radio resource to the first relay node, based on the delay value, classified in CPC group H04W84 subgroup 047.
Also, the inventions are directed to different embodiments and methods described respectively in Figures 12 and 18 of the specification. The figures show different processes, one for measuring, by the relay node, a delay time until untransmitted data to be transmitted to a parent node of the relay node via a logical channel is transferred to the relay node; and allocating, by the relay node, a resource for data transmission to the logical channel, based on the delay time (claims 1-7), and another one for calculating, by the first relay node being a child node of the second relay node, a delay value of a packet stored in a transmission buffer; transmitting, by the first relay node, the delay value to the second relay node by using a buffer status report (BSR); and allocating, by the second relay node, a radio resource to the first relay node, based on the delay value (claims 8-9).
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
A telephone call was made to Attorney Joseph Buczynski (Reg. No. 35,084) on February 17, 2026 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement and Group I, claims 1-7, were elected without traverse.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors in no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(1).
Claims 1-7 are now presented for further examination.
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.
Claims from pending
Application No. 18/474,639
Claims from U.S.
Patent No. 12,470,964
1. A communication control method performed by a relay node, the communication control method comprising:
measuring, by the relay node, a delay time until untransmitted data to be transmitted to a parent node of the relay node via a logical channel is transferred to the relay node; and
allocating, by the relay node, a resource for data transmission to the logical channel, based on the delay time.
1. A communication control method executed by a user equipment, the communication control method comprising:
measuring a residence time of unsent data to be transmitted by the user equipment to a base station via a logical channel; and
allocating in a MAC layer of the user equipment, to the logical channel, a resource for data transmission based on the residence time,
wherein the allocating comprises:
allocating the resource to the logical channel preferentially over other logical channels to inhibit the residence time from exceeding a residence upper limit time configured for the logical channel; and
allocating, to the logical channel and when the residence time reaches a predetermined time, the resource that is larger than a predetermined resource regardless of priority configured for the logical channel, wherein the predetermined time is time shorter than the residence upper limit time,
the predetermined resource is a minimum resource guaranteed for the logical channel;
wherein the residence upper limit time is a variable parameter configured for the user equipment by the base station.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,470,964. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claim 1 of the pending Appl. No. 18/474,639 and the subject matter of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,470,964 disclose a similar scope of invention. The similar scope of invention is related to measuring a delay time until untransmitted data to be transmitted to a parent node of the relay node via a logical channel is transferred to the relay node and allocating a resource for data transmission to the logical channel, based on the delay time. While the claims are not verbatim copies, they are clearly identical in scope.
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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 09/26/2023 in which claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 8-9 were not elected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2023 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2022/0070104), hereinafter “Luo” in view of Majmundar et al. (US 2020/0145286), hereinafter “Majmundar”.
As to claim 1, Luo teaches a communication control method performed by a relay node (Luo, Fig. 12, [0106], a method of wireless communication performed by an IAB node), the communication control method comprising:
measuring, by the relay node, a delay time until untransmitted data (Luo, Fig. 12, [0108], “the IAB node performs a discard decision based on the first delay parameter associated with the packet”, [0109], “discard the packet based on a latency of the packet exceeding the first delay parameter. In some examples, the latency may correspond to the latency between a DU of the IAB node and a child node scheduled by the IAB node for a single hop”) to be transmitted to a parent node of the relay node is transferred to the relay node (Luo, Fig. 12, [0110], the packet is to be transmitted to a second IAB node if the packet is not discarded. Fig. 11 shows the second IAB node, for example IAB node 1114 as a parent node of the IAB node 1116); and
allocating, by the relay node, a resource for data transmission, based on the delay time (Luo, [0091], “the scheduling node may apply delay-aware scheduling to prioritize the scheduling decision and resource allocation among RLC channels”, Fig. 12, [0110], “At 1208, the IAB node schedules the packet for transmission to a second IAB node…the IAB node may schedule the packet for transmission if the IAB node does not discard the packet based on the first delay parameter”, [0118], “scheduling the packet for the transmission using the second delay parameter includes prioritizing the transmission of the packet relative to multiple RLC channels. The multiple RLC channels may include one or more backhaul RLC channels”).
Luo teaches the claimed limitations as stated above. Luo does not explicitly teach the following underlined features: regarding claim 1, transmitted to a parent node of the relay node via a logical channel; and
data transmission to the logical channel.
However, Majmundar teaches transmitted to a parent node of the relay node via a logical channel (Majmundar, [0039] ln 15-19, a logical channel is used between the IAB node and the parent node); and
data transmission to the logical channel (Majmundar, [0039], the logical channel between the IAB node and the parent node is used to transmit traffic from the UEs served by the IAB node, where a scheduler in the MAC allocates resources to a bearer with mapping to the logical channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luo to have the features, as taught by Majmundar in order to extend the LCID range to support the logical channels (Majmundar, [0039]).
As to claim 4, Luo teaches wherein
the measuring comprises measuring, by the relay node, the delay time based on hop count information included in a Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP) Data Protocol Data Unit (PDU) of the untransmitted data (Luo, [0100], “the latency of the packet that the IAB node uses for the discarding decision may be a more comprehensive latency that includes the latency from previous hops, e.g., all previous hops. The IAB node may derive the latency experienced from previous hops via a time stamp carried by the packet header, e.g. at BAP header”. The measurement of the packet’s latency is based on the hop information of previous hops included in the BAP header of the packet).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are 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.
Claims 5-7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, since no prior arts were found to disclose the features of the claims as shown below.
Luo et al. (US 2022/0070104), hereinafter “Luo” and Majmundar et al. (US 2020/0145286), hereinafter “Majmundar” are the closest prior arts found after examiner’s thorough search.
Regarding independent claim 5, the closes prior art Luo discloses a method of wireless communication performed by an IAB node (Luo, Fig. 12, [0106]). Luo recites in [0108], “the IAB node performs a discard decision based on the first delay parameter associated with the packet”, and in [0109], “discard the packet based on a latency of the packet exceeding the first delay parameter. In some examples, the latency may correspond to the latency between a DU of the IAB node and a child node scheduled by the IAB node for a single hop”. The packet is to be transmitted to a second IAB node if the packet is not discarded (Luo, Fig. 12, [0110]). Luo’s Fig. 11 shows the second IAB node, for example IAB node 1114 as a parent node of the IAB node 1116. Luo further recites in [0091], “the scheduling node may apply delay-aware scheduling to prioritize the scheduling decision and resource allocation among RLC channels”, in [0110] “At 1208, the IAB node schedules the packet for transmission to a second IAB node…the IAB node may schedule the packet for transmission if the IAB node does not discard the packet based on the first delay parameter”, and in [0118] “scheduling the packet for the transmission using the second delay parameter includes prioritizing the transmission of the packet relative to multiple RLC channels. The multiple RLC channels may include one or more backhaul RLC channels”. Thus, the resource allocation is for the packet transmission via the RLC channel based on the first delay parameter and the latency measured for the packet.
Regarding independent claim 5, the closes prior art Majmundar discloses in [0039] a logical channel between the IAB node and the parent node used to transmit traffic from the UEs served by the IAB node, where a scheduler in the MAC allocates resources to a bearer with mapping to the logical channel.
However, regarding independent claim 5, Luo and Majmundar either alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest the underlined claimed features of “A communication control method performed by a relay node, the communication control method comprising:
acquiring, by the relay node, a first delay time and a second delay time individually, the first delay time being a time until a first packet to be transmitted to a parent node of the relay node through a logical channel is transferred to the relay node, and the second delay time being a time until a second packet to be transmitted to the parent node of the relay node through a logical channel is transferred to the relay node; and
allocating, by the relay node, a resource for data transmission to the logical channel with the second packet being prioritized over the first packet when the second delay time is longer than the first delay time” when taking in context of claim 5 as a whole. Therefore, allowable over the prior art of record, when interpreted in accordance with the present specification description.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0266783 – Data transmission method and apparatus used in wireless backhaul network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO H CASTANEYRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICARDO H CASTANEYRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473