DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant essentially argues that the amendment to the claims and newly added claims (claims 22-28) are not taught by the applied references.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments and the newly added claims are taught by the applied references. See rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 25 contains the new limitation of “wherein the split-bearer quality reports are based on UE-observed packet latency associated with PDCP reordering across the split-bearer.” without support from the original disclosure. Claim 28 contains the new limitation of “wherein adjusting the ratio of the split comprises reducing transmission of data via the second cell group in response to the delivery or reordering condition indicating increased PDCP reordering latency associated with the second cell group” without support from the original disclosure. Applicant is requested to point out in the next response the passages where the original disclosure supports such limitations and how the original disclosure reads on the limitation.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 17-22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150085800 A1 herein Kathiravetpillai in view of US 20180324644 A1 herein Koskinen.
Claim 1, Kathiravetpillai discloses a method for providing performance feedback of a split-bearer in dual connectivity (paragraphs [0023]-[0029], [0037]-[0042] bearer split may refer to an ability to split a bearer over multiple eNBs in dual connectivity and figures 1A-10), comprising:
setting up, by a hosting base station, a split-bearer for a user equipment (UE) device connected to at least two cell groups (CGs) supported by the hosting base station and one or more corresponding base stations, including a ratio of a split of data to be delivered to the UE via the hosting base station and data to be delivered to the UE via the one or more corresponding base stations (paragraphs [0023]-[0029], [0037]-[0042] determine a downlink split ratio at a master evolved node B (MeNB) 402 [i.e., a hosting base station], and then based on the downlink split ratio, the MeNB 402 may send data to a user equipment (UE)406 ; second evolved node B (SeNB) 404 [i.e., a corresponding base station] may exchange information for determining the downlink split ratio at the MeNB402 and figures 1A-10);
transmitting, based on the ratio of the split, a first portion of the data to the UE via a connection with the UE and a second portion of the data to the one or more corresponding base stations via a connection with the one or more corresponding base stations to be sent to the UE (paragraphs [0023]-[0029], [0037]-[0042] MeNB402 may use the effective data rates for the UE 406 when determining the downlink split ratio; downlink split ratio may define a percentage of data to be communicated to the UE 406 directly from the MeNB402 and a percentage of data to be communicated to the UE 406 from the MeNB 402 via the SeNB 404; data may be communicated between the MeNB 402 and the UE 406 over a MeNB radio link, and the data may be communicated between the SeNB 404 and the UE 406 over a SeNB radio link and figures 1A-10); and
adjusting, based at least in part on one or more split-bearer quality reports received from the UE, the ratio of the split (paragraphs [0023]-[0029], [0037]-[0042] MeNB 402may determine an effective data rate for the MeNB radio link(i.e., the communication link between the MeNB 402 and the UE 406) and an effective data rate for the SeNB radio link(i.e., the communication link between the SeNB 404 and the UE 406); effective data rate may define an average transfer rate of data over a period of time for the radio link (i.e., the MeNB radio link or the SeNB radio link) [i.e., a downlink split bearer ratio] ; MeNB402 may determine the effective data rates for the UE406 using a Shannon capacity formula, i.e., log2(1+SINR) ; MeNB 402may obtain two CQI values [i.e., split bearer quality reports, received from the UE]; CQI values may be received from the SeNB 404 and/ or the UE 406 [i.e., split bearer quality reports, received from the UE]; first CQI value may describe a channel quality of the MeNB radio link; second CQI value may describe a channel quality of the SeNB radio link [i.e., split bearer quality reports, received from the UE]; Using the Shannon capacity formula and the SINR measurements from the CQI values, the MeNB402 may determine a channel capacity for the MeNB radio link and a channel capacity for the SeNB radio link; MeNB 402 may determine the effective data rates for the UE 406based on the channel capacities of the MeNB radio link and the SeNB radio link, respectively and figures 1A-10).
Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose receiving, via a Packet Data Control Protocol (PDCP) layer connection with the UE, one or more split-bearer quality reports; and adjusting, based at least in part on one or more split-bearer quality reports comprising PDCP-layer feedback information indicative of a delivery or reordering condition associated with the split-bearer received from the UE, the ratio of the split.
Koskinen discloses receiving, via a Packet Data Control Protocol (PDCP) layer connection with the UE, one or more split-bearer quality reports (0049, configuring the UE to send flow control feedback at a PDCP level; UE to eNB PDCP-level reports for split-bearer control); and adjusting, based at least in part on one or more split-bearer quality reports comprising PDCP-layer feedback information indicative of a delivery or reordering condition associated with the split-bearer received from the UE, the ratio of the split (0033, routing of split bearers and decisions for packet paths to minimize reordering, utilizing PDCP feedback to control forwarding and splitting); wherein the PDCP-layer feedback information comprises an identification of a PDCP PDU sequence number (SN) associated with a reordering delay or missing-PDU condition across the split-bearer (0057, missing PDU over the split bearer; 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include feedback of flow control as taught by Koskinen so a receiver at the destination can deliver “reordered data” as fast as possible to an application using the data (0032).
Claim 2, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, to the UE, split assistance information indicating at least the ratio of the split, wherein the split assistance information is sent via a Packet Data Control Protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) or radio resource control signaling (0023-0029, split information received at UE’s PDCP layer; 0037-0042, downlink split ratio are sent to the UE or a percentage is defined by the MeNB).
Claim 3, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the split is based on one or more of packet count, bytes, or throughput (0037-0042, effective data rates used for determining the downlink split ratio)
Claim 4, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of data is transmitted to the UE via a radio link control (RLC) layer connection with the UE (0037-0042, data sent to the UE via radio link between the UE and MeNB); and wherein the second portion of data is transmitted to the one or more corresponding base stations via a radio link control (RLC) layer connection with the one or more corresponding base stations (0037-0042).
Claim 5, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the connection with the one or more corresponding base stations comprises a backhaul connection, wherein the backhaul connection comprises one or more of a wired connection or a wireless connection (0037-0042, X2 connection).
Claim 6, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the connection with the one or more corresponding base stations comprises at least a wireless backhaul connection comprising one or more of: a cellular link; a satellite link; or a WiFi link (0037-0042, cellular systems containing MeNB and SeNB).
Claim 7, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein at least one connection to the one or more corresponding base stations comprises a multi-hop link (0037, UE to SeNB and MeNB).
Claim 8, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the split-bearer quality reports are received via a Packet Data Control Protocol (PDCP) layer connection with the UE (0029-0033; 0037-0042).
Claim 9, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise one or more of: layer 1 (L1) measurements performed at the UE on the one or more corresponding base stations (0023-0026; 0037-0042, measurement of received signal thus L1, physical layer); channel quality indicator (CQI) reports for the one or more corresponding base stations; or block error rate (BLER) reports (0037-0042, CQI reports of the MeNB and SeNB).
Claim 10, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. Kathiravetpillai discloses a hosting base station (Fig. 4: MeNB), comprising: at least one antenna (0066, antenna); at least one radio in communication with the at least one antenna and configured to communicate according to at least one radio access technology (RAT) (communication using at least one of multiple standards); and one or more processors in communication with the at least one radio (0066-0067, processor – it should be noted that Kathiravetpillai discloses an MeNB, which is a conventional cellular networking device and inherently has antennas, processor and radios (operating with at least one wireless technology)).
Claim 11 Kathiravetpillai discloses The hosting base station of claim 10, wherein the ratio of the split is a Packet Data Control Protocol (PDCP) split ratio (0023-0029, split information received at UE’s PDCP layer; 0037-0042, downlink split ratio are sent to the UE or a percentage is defined by the MeNB), wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise PDCP split ratio anomalies, and wherein PDCP split ratio anomalies comprise a specified deviation from the split ratio (0059-0060, readjusting the split-ratio when a latency threshold is not met).
Claim 12, Kathiravetpillai discloses The hosting base station of claim 10, wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise reordering information (0037-0042, ACK and NACK information).
Claim 13, Kathiravetpillai discloses The hosting base station of claim 12, wherein reordering information comprises one or more of: a sequence number (SN) of a data packet blocking reordering; or SNs of missing data packets (0036, reordering buffer for combined PDCP PDUs).
Claim 14, Kathiravetpillai discloses The hosting base station of claim 10, wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise one or more of packet count, byte count, or throughput statistics on a per cell group basis (0023-0029; 0037-0042, effective data rate of MeNB and SeNB).
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 18, Kathiravetpillai discloses The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise Packet Data Protocol Control (PDCP) status reports (0037-0042); and wherein the split-bearer quality reports are received at a PDCP entity of the hosting base station from a PDCP entity of the UE (0023-0029; 0037-0042, layer to layer communication is conventional in cellular systems and therefore it is implied).
Claim 19, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 13.
Claim 20, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 13.
Claim 21, Kathiravetpillai discloses The method of claim 1. Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose wherein the PDCP-layer feedback information comprises an identification of a PDCP PDU sequence number (SN) associated with a reordering delay or missing-PDU condition across the split-bearer, including an indication that the identified PDCP PDU was delivered via a first cell group while one or more adjacent PDCP PDUs were delivered via a second cell group.
Koskinen discloses wherein the PDCP-layer feedback information comprises an identification of a PDCP PDU sequence number (SN) associated with a reordering delay or missing-PDU condition across the split-bearer (0051-0055, PDCP PDU sequence numbers delivered successfully delivered in sequence), including an indication that the identified PDCP PDU was delivered via a first cell group while one or more adjacent PDCP PDUs were delivered via a second cell group (0031, 0051-0056, PDCP PDUs are delivered via different paths including MeNB, SeNB and WLAN; delivery status from the UE states which PDUs were delivered from which path). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include feedback of flow control as taught by Koskinen so a receiver at the destination can deliver “reordered data” as fast as possible to an application using the data (0032).
Claim 22, Kathiravetpillai in view of Koskinen discloses the method of claim 1. Kathiravetpillai wherein the split-bearer quality reports are received at a PDCP entity of the hosting base station from a PDCP entity of the UE.
Koskinen discloses wherein the split-bearer quality reports are received at a PDCP entity of the hosting base station from a PDCP entity of the UE (0046, PDCP at UE; 0048, flow control information provided to the eNB from the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include feedback of flow control as taught by Koskinen so a receiver at the destination can deliver “reordered data” as fast as possible to an application using the data (0032).
Claim 24, Kathiravetpillai in view of Koskinen discloses the method of claim 1. Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise an indication of a PDCP reordering condition at the UE associated with combining data received via the at least two cell groups.
Koskinen discloses wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise an indication of a PDCP reordering condition at the UE associated with combining data received via the at least two cell groups (0031, 0051-0056, PDCP PDUs are delivered via different paths including MeNB, SeNB and WLAN; delivery status from the UE states which PDUs were delivered from which path). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include feedback of flow control as taught by Koskinen so a receiver at the destination can deliver “reordered data” as fast as possible to an application using the data (0032).
Claim 25, Kathiravetpillai in view of Koskinen discloses the method of claim 1. Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose wherein the split-bearer quality reports are based on UE-observed packet latency associated with PDCP reordering across the split-bearer.
Koskinen discloses wherein the split-bearer quality reports are based on UE-observed packet latency associated with PDCP reordering across the split-bearer (0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include feedback of flow control as taught by Koskinen so a receiver at the destination can deliver “reordered data” as fast as possible to an application using the data (0032).
Claim 27, Kathiravetpillai in view of Koskinen discloses the method of claim 1. Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose wherein the delivery or reordering condition comprises identification of one or more missing PDCP PDUs within a sequence of PDCP PDUs received at the UE.
Koskinen discloses wherein the delivery or reordering condition comprises identification of one or more missing PDCP PDUs within a sequence of PDCP PDUs received at the UE (0051-0057, reports of missing PDUs with SN). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include feedback of flow control as taught by Koskinen so a receiver at the destination can deliver “reordered data” as fast as possible to an application using the data (0032).
Claim 28, Kathiravetpillai in view of Koskinen discloses the method of claim 1. Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the ratio of the split comprises reducing transmission of data via the second cell group in response to the delivery or reordering condition indicating increased PDCP reordering latency associated with the second cell group.
Koskinen discloses wherein adjusting the ratio of the split comprises reducing transmission of data via the second cell group in response to the delivery or reordering condition indicating increased PDCP reordering latency associated with the second cell group (0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include feedback of flow control as taught by Koskinen so a receiver at the destination can deliver “reordered data” as fast as possible to an application using the data (0032).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kathiravetpillai in view of US 20220007443 A1 herein Fangli.
Claim 15, Kathiravetpillai discloses The hosting base station of claim 10, wherein the split-bearer quality report is received in-band via Packet Data Control Protocol (PDCP) control signaling (0037-0042, CQI reports are reported on cellular frequencies).
Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise an indication of a UE preferred split ratio; wherein the UE preferred split ratio is based on battery status or thermal status of the UE.
Fangli discloses wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise an indication of a UE preferred split ratio (0092-0120, UE preferred ratio); wherein the UE preferred split ratio is based on battery status or thermal status of the UE (0092-0120, battery status and thermal status of the UE for split configurations). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include consideration of battery power and thermal status of the UE as taught by Fangli so as to conserve battery power (0003).
Claim 16, Kathiravetpillai discloses The hosting base station of claim 10. Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise a request or command to switch to a UE preferred split ratio.
Fangli discloses wherein the split-bearer quality reports comprise a request or command to switch to a UE preferred split ratio (0092-0120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include consideration of battery power and thermal status of the UE as taught by Fangli so as to conserve battery power (0003).
Claim 23, Kathiravetpillai in view of Koskinen discloses the method of claim 1. Kathiravetpillai may not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the ratio of the split comprises modifying an amount of data forwarded to at least one of the one or more corresponding base stations responsive to the delivery or reordering condition.
Fangli discloses wherein adjusting the ratio of the split comprises modifying an amount of data forwarded to at least one of the one or more corresponding base stations responsive to the delivery or reordering condition (0104-0105, preferred UE ratios for split are based on measurements of cell groups). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include consideration of battery power and thermal status of the UE as taught by Fangli so as to conserve battery power (0003).
Claim 26, Kathiravetpillai in view of Koskinen discloses the method of claim 1. Kathiravetpillai in view of Koskinen may not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, from the UE, a recommendation to adjust the ratio of the split based on the one or more split-bearer quality reports.
Fangli discloses receiving, from the UE, a recommendation to adjust the ratio of the split based on the one or more split-bearer quality reports (0092-0120, UE preferred ratio). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kathiravetpillai to include consideration of battery power and thermal status of the UE as taught by Fangli so as to conserve battery power (0003).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240107377 A1 - A method and system for controlling data split of a dual-connected user equipment device (UE) when the UE has at least two co-existing air-interface connections including a first air-interface connection with a first access node and a second air-interface connection with a second access node. An example method includes (i) comparing a level of spectral efficiency of the first air-interface connection with a level of spectral efficiency of the second air-interface connection, (ii) based at least on the comparing, establishing a split ratio that defines a distribution of data flow of the UE between at least the first air-interface connection and the second air-interface connection, and (iii) based on the establishing, causing the established split ratio to be applied. Further the method could include using the comparison as a basis to set one of the UE's air-interface connections as the UE's primary uplink path.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights