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 .
Status of the Claims
Based on the current claims (Claims, 17 March 2026), Claims 1-40 are pending.
Based on the current claims (Claims, 17 March 2026), Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 17-18, 21, 27-28, 31, 37-38 are amended.
Based on the current claims (Claims, 17 March 2026), Claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 are amended and said amendments are narrowing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection of Claim 1, Claim 11, Claim 21, and Claim 31 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the non-statutory double patenting rejection of Claim 1, Claim 11, Claim 21, and Claim 31 has been held in abeyance.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 11, Claim 21, and Claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11, 18, 21-22, 24-25, 28, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 38.473 V15.0.0 (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP38.473”) in view of 3GPP TS 38.331 V15.0.0 (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP38.331”) in further view of Yang et al. (US 20200214064 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 28.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 38.
Regarding Claim 21, 3GPP38.473 discloses a base station distributed unit comprising:
send, to a base station central unit, a first message (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses sending, by a next generation distributed unit (gNB-DU) from a next generation central unit (gNB-CU), a user equipment (UE) Context Modification Required message) comprising an indication of a parameter (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises Distributed Unit to Central Unit Radio Resource (DU to CU RRC) Information. Pg. 50, §9.3.1.26 DU to CU RRC Information, 3GPP38.473 further discloses that the DU to CU RRC Information comprises Cell Group Config (CellGroupConfig) Information Element (IE). Examiner correlates the CellGroupConfig IE to “an indication for a parameter”); and
receive, from the base station central unit, a second message (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses receiving, by the gNB-CU from the gNB-DU, a UE Context Modification Confirm message) comprising at least one configuration parameter (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.11 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION CONFIRM message comprises data resource bearer identifier (DRB ID) and a Tunnels to be Setup List), wherein the at least one configuration parameter comprises an indication of the cell and the logical channel (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.11 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION CONFIRM message and the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION MESSAGE both comprise a DRB ID which further provides an indication of a cell and a logical channel).
However, 3GPP38.473 does not disclose a [parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel.
3GPP38.331, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a [parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel (Pg. 68, §6.3.2 Radio Resource Control Information Elements, CellGroupConfig, 3GPP38.331 discloses a CellGroupConfig IE where the CellGroupConfig includes parameters comprising a CellGroupID and a LogicalChannelIdentity. The CellGroupID parameter indicates an identity of at least one cell of a cell group and the LogicalChannelIdentity indicates a logical channel to be used in conjunction with the at least one cell indicated by the CellGroupID parameter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 by requiring a [parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel as taught by 3GPP38.331 because adherence to a 3GPP Technical Specification improves the operation of the base station by allowing for interoperability with other devices adhering to the 3GPP specification (3GPP38.331, Pg. 9, §1 Scope).
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station distributed unit to [perform a method].
Yang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches one or more processors (¶45, Yang disclose a device comprising a processor); and memory storing instructions (¶45, Yang disclose a device comprising a storage medium storing executable instructions) that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station distributed unit to [perform a method] (¶45, Yang disclose that the instructions are executed by the processor to cause the device to perform a method).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station distributed unit to [perform a method] as taught by Yang because control conflicts are avoided by coordinating the two node devices controlling the duplication data transmission of a carrier (Yang, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 22, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
3GPP38.473 further discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to:
configure the cell for the logical channel (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses configuring, by the gNB-DU, the cell and the logical channel indicated in the CellGroupConfig of the UE Context Modification Required message).
Regarding Claim 24, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
3GPP38.473 further discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to:
receive, from the base station central unit, a third message (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses sending, by a next generation distributed unit (gNB-DU) from a next generation central unit (gNB-CU), a user equipment (UE) Context Modification Required message) comprising bearer configuration parameters associated with a bearer for a wireless device (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises DRB Required to be Modified IEs and a data radio bearer (DRB) identifier (ID)).
Yang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that packet duplication is configured for the bearer (¶85, Yang discloses a related parameter corresponding to data duplication comprising an indication that the bearer has been configured for data duplication transmission mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring that the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that packet duplication is configured for the bearer as taught by Yang because control conflicts are avoided by coordinating the two node devices controlling the duplication data transmission of a carrier (Yang, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the he base station distributed unit of claim 24.
3GPP38.473 further discloses the third message further comprises at least one of:
a tunnel endpoint identifier of a tunnel for the logical channel (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises Tunnels to Be Setup Item IE where the Tunnels to Be Setup Item IE further comprises a GTP Tunnel Endpoint. Pg. 50-51: §9.3.2.1: GTP Tunnel Endpoint, 3GPP38.473 discloses a GTP Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (GTP TEID)); or
an information element indicating that the logical channel is for duplicated packets of the bearer (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
Regarding Claim 28, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
3GPP38.331, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell (Pg. 67-68, CellGroupConfig, 3GPP38.331 discloses that the CellGroupConfig information element (IE) indicates an associated between the cell and a logical channel identity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring that the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell as taught by 3GPP38.331 because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.331, Pg. 9).
Regarding Claim 31, 3GPP38.473 discloses a base station central unit comprising:
receive, from a base station distributed unit, a first message (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses receiving, by a next generation central unit (gNB-CU) from a next generation distributed unit (gNB-DU), a user equipment (UE) Context Modification Required message) comprising an indication of a parameter (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises Distributed Unit to Central Unit Radio Resource (DU to CU RRC) Information. Pg. 50, §9.3.1.26 DU to CU RRC Information, 3GPP38.473 further discloses that the DU to CU RRC Information comprises Cell Group Config (CellGroupConfig) Information Element (IE). Examiner correlates the CellGroupConfig IE to “an indication of a parameter”); and
send, to the base station distributed unit, a second message (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses receiving, by the gNB-CU from the gNB-DU, a UE Context Modification Confirm message) comprising at least one configuration parameter (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.11 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION CONFIRM message comprises data resource bearer identifier (DRB ID) and a Tunnels to be Setup List), wherein the at least one configuration parameter comprises an indication of the cell and the logical channel (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.11 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION CONFIRM message and the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION MESSAGE both comprise a DRB ID which further provides an indication of a cell and a logical channel).
However, 3GPP38.473 does not disclose a [parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel.
3GPP38.331, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a [parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel (Pg. 68, §6.3.2 Radio Resource Control Information Elements, CellGroupConfig, 3GPP38.331 discloses a CellGroupConfig IE where the CellGroupConfig includes parameters comprising a CellGroupID and a LogicalChannelIdentity. The CellGroupID parameter indicates an identity of at least one cell of a cell group and the LogicalChannelIdentity indicates a logical channel to be used in conjunction with the at least one cell indicated by the CellGroupID parameter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 by requiring a [parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel as taught by 3GPP38.331 because adherence to a 3GPP Technical Specification improves the operation of the base station by allowing for interoperability with other devices adhering to the 3GPP specification (3GPP38.331, Pg. 9, §1 Scope).
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station distributed unit to [perform a method].
Yang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches one or more processors (¶45, Yang disclose a device comprising a processor); and memory storing instructions (¶45, Yang disclose a device comprising a storage medium storing executable instructions) that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station distributed unit to [perform a method] (¶45, Yang disclose that the instructions are executed by the processor to cause the device to perform a method).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station distributed unit to [perform a method] as taught by Yang because control conflicts are avoided by coordinating the two node devices controlling the duplication data transmission of a carrier (Yang, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 38, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell.
3GPP38.331, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell (Pg. 67-68, CellGroupConfig, 3GPP38.331 discloses that the CellGroupConfig information element (IE) indicates an associated between the cell and a logical channel identity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring that the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell as taught by 3GPP38.331 because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.331, Pg. 9).
Claim 3, 12, 23, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of Yang in further view of Park et al. (US 20160345257 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 32.
Regarding Claim 23, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to: send, to the base station central unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks.
Park, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to:
send, to the base station central unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks (¶83, Park discloses sending, by the distributed unit to the central unit, at least one transport block).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by sending, to the base station central unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks as taught by Park because wireless communication is improved by reducing internal signaling burden in a distributed antenna system by applying an hierarchical structure (Park, ¶3).
Regarding Claim 32, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to: receive, from the base station distributed unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks.
Park, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to:
receive, from the base station distributed unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks (¶83, Park discloses receiving, by the central unit from the distributed unit, at least one transport block).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by receiving, from the base station distributed unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks as taught by Park because wireless communication is improved by reducing internal signaling burden in a distributed antenna system by applying an hierarchical structure (Park, ¶3).
Claims 6, 16, 26, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Babaei et al. (US 20190098533 A1 using the provisional filing date of 25 September 2017 corresponding to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827; hereinafter referred to as “Babaei”).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 36.
Regarding Claim 26, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
3GPP38.473 further discloses the first message further comprises an indication that a bearer for a wireless device is configured by the base station distributed unit (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises Data Radio Bearer (DRB) Required to Be Modified Item IE where the DRB Required to Be Modified Item IE indicates that radio bearer corresponding to the DRB ID to be configured by the gNB-DU).
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the logical channel comprises a first logical channel, wherein the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel.
Babaei, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the logical channel comprises a first logical channel (¶219 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827: ¶120-122, Babaei discloses a first logical channel), wherein the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel (¶219 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827: ¶120-122, Babaei discloses that the first logical channel is for packet duplication of PDCP packets where the PDCP packet duplication configuration parameters indicate an association between the first logical channel and the second logical channel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring that the logical channel comprises a first logical channel and the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel as taught by Babaei because redundancy schemes operating below PDCP and/or in carrier aggregation (CA) scenarios may be used for the reliability/latency enhancement of URLLC (Babaei, ¶180).
Regarding Claim 36, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the logical channel comprises a first logical channel, wherein the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel.
Babaei, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the logical channel comprises a first logical channel (¶219 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827: ¶120-122, Babaei discloses a first logical channel), wherein the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel (¶219 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827: ¶120-122, Babaei discloses that the first logical channel is for packet duplication of PDCP packets where the PDCP packet duplication configuration parameters indicate an association between the first logical channel and the second logical channel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring that the logical channel comprises a first logical channel and the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel as taught by Babaei because redundancy schemes operating below PDCP and/or in carrier aggregation (CA) scenarios may be used for the reliability/latency enhancement of URLLC (Babaei, ¶180).
Claims 9, 19, 29, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of Yang in further view of Deng et al. (US 20170171748 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Deng”).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 29.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 39.
Regarding Claim 29, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the second message is a radio resource control message.
Deng, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the second message is a radio resource control message (¶44, Deng discloses that the UE Context Modification Response message is a message sent over Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring that the second message is a radio resource control message as taught by Deng because the refreshment for two keys in the dual connectivity situation when the user plane architecture 1A is configured (Deng, ¶4).
Regarding Claim 39, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the second message is a radio resource control message.
Deng, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the second message is a radio resource control message (¶44, Deng discloses that the UE Context Modification Response message is a message sent over Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring that the second message is a radio resource control message as taught by Deng because the refreshment for two keys in the dual connectivity situation when the user plane architecture 1A is configured (Deng, ¶4).
Claims 10, 20, 30, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of Yang in further view of Kim et al. (US 20190342809 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 30.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 40.
Regarding Claim 30, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to: send, to a wireless device, the second message.
Kim, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to:
send, to a wireless device, the second message (¶66 & Fig. 2 (S230), Kim discloses sending, by the distributed unit from the central unit, data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by sending, to a wireless device, the second message as taught by Deng because inter-compatibility between base station apparatuses is improved when the various types of base stations are required to be dynamically configured for each location or each service (Kim, ¶6).
Regarding Claim 40, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station central unit to send the second message by: sending, to a wireless device via the base station distributed unit, the second message.
Kim, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station central unit to send the second message by:
sending, to a wireless device via the base station distributed unit, the second message (¶66 & Fig. 2 (S230), Kim discloses sending, by the distributed unit from the central unit, data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by sending, to a wireless device via the base station distributed unit, the second message as taught by Deng because inter-compatibility between base station apparatuses is improved when the various types of base stations are required to be dynamically configured for each location or each service (Kim, ¶6).
Claims 13-15 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of Yang in further view of Yu et al. (US 20200187282 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yu”).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 33.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 34.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 35.
Regarding Claim 33, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
3GPP38.473 further discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to:
send, to the base station distributed unit, a third message (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses sending, by a next generation central unit (gNB-CU) to a next generation distributed unit (gNB-DU), a user equipment (UE) Context Modification Required message) comprising bearer configuration parameters associated with the bearer for the wireless device (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises DRB Required to be Modified IEs and a data radio bearer (DRB) identifier (ID)).
Yang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that the packet duplication is configured for the bearer (¶85, Yang discloses a related parameter corresponding to data duplication comprising an indication that the bearer has been configured for data duplication transmission mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that the packet duplication is configured for the bearer as taught by Yang because control conflicts are avoided by coordinating the two node devices controlling the duplication data transmission of a carrier (Yang, Abstract).
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose to determine whether packet duplication is configured for a bearer for a wireless device.
Yu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine whether packet duplication is configured for a bearer for a wireless device (¶117 & Fig. 3, Yu discloses determining, by a packet duplication control element of a master cell group (MCG), whether packet duplication Is configured for a user equipment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by determining whether packet duplication is configured for a bearer for a wireless device as taught by Yu because reliability and robustness of a wireless communication having a guaranteed level of reliability of a correct transmission of data is improved when dynamic packet duplication control is established (Yu, ¶7).
Regarding Claim 34, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of Yang in further view of Yu discloses the base station central unit of claim 33.
3GPP38.473 further discloses the third message further comprises at least one of:
a tunnel endpoint identifier of a tunnel for the logical channel (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises Tunnels to Be Setup Item IE where the Tunnels to Be Setup Item IE further comprises a GTP Tunnel Endpoint. Pg. 50-51: §9.3.2.1: GTP Tunnel Endpoint, 3GPP38.473 discloses a GTP Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (GTP TEID)); or
an information element indicating that the logical channel is for duplicated packets of the bearer (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
Regarding Claim 35, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to: receive, from a wireless device, a measurement result of the cell, wherein the measurement result comprises at least one of: a reference signal received power; or a reference signal received quality; and determine, based on the measurement result, packet duplication for a bearer for the wireless device.
Yu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to:
receive, from a wireless device, a measurement result of the cell (¶116 & Fig. 3 (S20 and S30), Yu discloses receiving, by a packet duplication control element of a master cell group (MCG), measurement result from each MCG/SCG MAC layer),
wherein the measurement result comprises at least one of:
a reference signal received power (¶115 & Fig. 3 (S10), Yu discloses that measurements are performed to determine a reference signal received power (RSRP) for each MCG/SCG MAC); or
a reference signal received quality (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”); and
determine, based on the measurement result, packet duplication for a bearer for the wireless device (¶117 & Fig. 3 (S40), Yu discloses determining, by a packet duplication control element of a master cell group (MCG), whether packet duplication Is configured for a user equipment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3GPP38.473 in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Yang by requiring that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to: receive, from a wireless device, a measurement result of the cell, wherein the measurement result comprises at least one of: a reference signal received power; or a reference signal received quality; and determine, based on the measurement result, packet duplication for a bearer for the wireless device as taught by Yu because reliability and robustness of a wireless communication having a guaranteed level of reliability of a correct transmission of data is improved when dynamic packet duplication control is established (Yu, ¶7).
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 1-2, 8, 11, 18, 21-22, 28, 31, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of 3GPP38.331.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 28.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 38.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent discloses a base station distributed unit comprising:
one or more processors (Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent discloses one or more processors); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station distributed unit (Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent discloses memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the base station distributed unit) to:
send, to a base station central unit, a first message comprising an indication of a parameter (Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent discloses send, to a base station central unit, a message comprising: at least one first cell index of at least one first cell for a first logical channel); and
receive, from the base station central unit, a second message comprising at least one configuration parameter (Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent discloses receive, from the base station central unit, a radio resource control message comprising configuration parameters for a wireless device),
wherein the at least one configuration parameter comprises an indication of the cell and the logical channel (Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent discloses wherein the configuration parameters comprise: the at least one first cell index of the at least one first cell for the first logical channel; and the at least one second cell index of the at least one second cell for the second logical channel).
However, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent does not disclose [a parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel.
3GPP38.331, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a [parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel (Pg. 68, §6.3.2 Radio Resource Control Information Elements, CellGroupConfig, 3GPP38.331 discloses a CellGroupConfig IE where the CellGroupConfig includes parameters comprising a CellGroupID and a LogicalChannelIdentity. The CellGroupID parameter indicates an identity of at least one cell of a cell group and the LogicalChannelIdentity indicates a logical channel to be used in conjunction with the at least one cell indicated by the CellGroupID parameter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent by requiring a [parameter] indicating a cell for a logical channel as taught by 3GPP38.331 because adherence to a 3GPP Technical Specification improves the operation of the base station by allowing for interoperability with other devices adhering to the 3GPP specification (3GPP38.331, Pg. 9, §1 Scope).
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
Claim 20 of the ‘659 Patent further discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to:
configure the cell for the logical channel (Claim 20 of the ‘659 Patent discloses configure the at least one first cell for the first logical channel and the at least one second cell for the second logical channel).
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
3GPP38.331, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell (Pg. 67-68, CellGroupConfig, 3GPP38.331 discloses that the CellGroupConfig information element (IE) indicates an associated between the cell and a logical channel identity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring that the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell as taught by 3GPP38.331 because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.331, Pg. 9).
Regarding Claim 31, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent discloses a base station central unit comprising:
one or more processors (Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent discloses one or more processors); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station central unit (Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent discloses memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the base station central unit to [perform a method]) to:
receive, from a base station distributed unit, a first message comprising an indication of a parameter (Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent discloses to receive, from a base station distributed unit, a message comprising: at least one first cell index of at least one first cell for a first logical channel); and
send, to the base station distributed unit, a second message comprising at least one configuration parameter (Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent discloses send, to a wireless device via the base station distributed unit, a radio resource control message comprising configuration parameters for the wireless device), wherein the at least one configuration parameter comprises an indication of the cell and the logical channel (Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent discloses the configuration parameters comprise: the at least one first cell index of the at least one first cell for the first logical channel).
Regarding Claim 38, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
3GPP38.331, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell (Pg. 67-68, CellGroupConfig, 3GPP38.331 discloses that the CellGroupConfig information element (IE) indicates an associated between the cell and a logical channel identity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring that the indication of the association between the cell and the logical channel comprises a cell index of the cell as taught by 3GPP38.331 because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.331, Pg. 9).
Claims 3, 12, 23, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Park.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 32.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
However, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to: send, to the base station central unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks.
Park, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to:
send, to the base station central unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks (¶83, Park discloses sending, by the distributed unit to the central unit, at least one transport block).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by sending, to the base station central unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks as taught by Park because wireless communication is improved by reducing internal signaling burden in a distributed antenna system by applying an hierarchical structure (Park, ¶3).
Regarding Claim 32, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to: receive, from the base station distributed unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks.
Park, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to:
receive, from the base station distributed unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks (¶83, Park discloses receiving, by the central unit from the distributed unit, at least one transport block).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by receiving, from the base station distributed unit via a tunnel for the logical channel, transport blocks as taught by Park because wireless communication is improved by reducing internal signaling burden in a distributed antenna system by applying an hierarchical structure (Park, ¶3).
Claims 4-5 and 24-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in further view of Yang.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
However, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to: receive, from the base station central unit, a third message comprising bearer configuration parameters associated with a bearer for a wireless device, wherein the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that packet duplication is configured for the bearer.
3GPP38.473, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to:
receive, from the base station central unit, a third message (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses sending, by a next generation distributed unit (gNB-DU) from a next generation central unit (gNB-CU), a user equipment (UE) Context Modification Required message) comprising bearer configuration parameters associated with a bearer for a wireless device (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises DRB Required to be Modified IEs and a data radio bearer (DRB) identifier (ID)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to: receive, from the base station central unit, a third message comprising bearer configuration parameters associated with a bearer for a wireless device, wherein the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that packet duplication is configured for the bearer as taught by 3GPP38.473 because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.478, Pg. 6-7).
However, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 does not disclose the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that packet duplication is configured for the bearer.
Yang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that packet duplication is configured for the bearer (¶85, Yang discloses a related parameter corresponding to data duplication comprising an indication that the bearer has been configured for data duplication transmission mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in further view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 by requiring that the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that packet duplication is configured for the bearer as taught by Yang because control conflicts are avoided by coordinating the two node devices controlling the duplication data transmission of a carrier (Yang, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in further view of Yang discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 24.
3GPP38.473, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the third message further comprises at least one of:
a tunnel endpoint identifier of a tunnel for the logical channel (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises Tunnels to Be Setup Item IE where the Tunnels to Be Setup Item IE further comprises a GTP Tunnel Endpoint. Pg. 50-51: §9.3.2.1: GTP Tunnel Endpoint, 3GPP38.473 discloses a GTP Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (GTP TEID)); or
an information element indicating that the logical channel is for duplicated packets of the bearer (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in further view of Yang by requiring that the third message further comprises a tunnel endpoint identifier of a tunnel for the logical channel as taught by 3GPP38.473 because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.478, Pg. 6-7).
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in further view of Babaei.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 26, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
However, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose the first message further comprises an indication that a bearer for a wireless device is configured by the base station distributed unit.
3GPP38.473, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first message further comprises an indication that a bearer for a wireless device is configured by the base station distributed unit (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises Data Radio Bearer (DRB) Required to Be Modified Item IE where the DRB Required to Be Modified Item IE indicates that radio bearer corresponding to the DRB ID to be configured by the gNB-DU).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring that the first message further comprises an indication that a bearer for a wireless device is configured by the base station distributed unit as taught by 3GPP38.473 because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.478, Pg. 6-7).
However, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of 3GPP38.473 does not disclose the logical channel comprises a first logical channel, wherein the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel.
Babaei, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the logical channel comprises a first logical channel (¶219 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827: ¶120-122, Babaei discloses a first logical channel), wherein the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel (¶219 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827: ¶120-122, Babaei discloses that the first logical channel is for packet duplication of PDCP packets where the PDCP packet duplication configuration parameters indicate an association between the first logical channel and the second logical channel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of 3GPP38.473 by requiring that the logical channel comprises a first logical channel and the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel as taught by Babaei because redundancy schemes operating below PDCP and/or in carrier aggregation (CA) scenarios may be used for the reliability/latency enhancement of URLLC (Babaei, ¶180).
Claims 16 and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Babaei.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 36.
Regarding Claim 36, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose the logical channel comprises a first logical channel, wherein the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel.
Babaei, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the logical channel comprises a first logical channel (¶219 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827: ¶120-122, Babaei discloses a first logical channel), wherein the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel (¶219 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/562,827: ¶120-122, Babaei discloses that the first logical channel is for packet duplication of PDCP packets where the PDCP packet duplication configuration parameters indicate an association between the first logical channel and the second logical channel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring that the logical channel comprises a first logical channel and the first logical channel is for packet duplication of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) packets associated with a second logical channel as taught by Babaei because redundancy schemes operating below PDCP and/or in carrier aggregation (CA) scenarios may be used for the reliability/latency enhancement of URLLC (Babaei, ¶180).
Claims 9, 19, 29, and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Deng.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 29.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 39.
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
However, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose the second message is a radio resource control message.
Deng, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the second message is a radio resource control message (¶44, Deng discloses that the UE Context Modification Response message is a message sent over Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring that the second message is a radio resource control message as taught by Deng because the refreshment for two keys in the dual connectivity situation when the user plane architecture 1A is configured (Deng, ¶4).
Regarding Claim 39, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose the second message is a radio resource control message.
Deng, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the second message is a radio resource control message (¶44, Deng discloses that the UE Context Modification Response message is a message sent over Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring that the second message is a radio resource control message as taught by Deng because the refreshment for two keys in the dual connectivity situation when the user plane architecture 1A is configured (Deng, ¶4).
Claims 10, 20, 30, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of Kim et al. (US 20190342809 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 30.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 40.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent discloses the base station distributed unit of claim 21.
However, Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to: send, to a wireless device, the second message.
Kim, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station distributed unit to:
send, to a wireless device, the second message (¶66 & Fig. 2 (S230), Kim discloses sending, by the distributed unit from the central unit, data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 19 of the ‘659 Patent by sending, to a wireless device, the second message as taught by Deng because inter-compatibility between base station apparatuses is improved when the various types of base stations are required to be dynamically configured for each location or each service (Kim, ¶6).
Regarding Claim 40, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station central unit to send the second message by: sending, to a wireless device via the base station distributed unit, the second message.
Kim, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the base station central unit to send the second message by:
sending, to a wireless device via the base station distributed unit, the second message (¶66 & Fig. 2 (S230), Kim discloses sending, by the distributed unit from the central unit, data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent by sending, to a wireless device via the base station distributed unit, the second message as taught by Deng because inter-compatibility between base station apparatuses is improved when the various types of base stations are required to be dynamically configured for each location or each service (Kim, ¶6).
Claims 13-14 and 33-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in view of Yang in further view of Yu et al. (US 20200187282 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yu”).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 33.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 34.
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 28 of the ‘629 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, Claim 28 of the ‘629 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to: send, to the base station distributed unit, a third message comprising bearer configuration parameters associated with the bearer for the wireless device.
3GPP38.473, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to:
send, to the base station distributed unit, a third message (Pg. 22-23, §8.3.5 UE Context Modification Required (gNB-DU initiated), 3GPP38.473 discloses sending, by a next generation central unit (gNB-CU) to a next generation distributed unit (gNB-DU), a user equipment (UE) Context Modification Required message) comprising bearer configuration parameters associated with the bearer for the wireless device (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises DRB Required to be Modified IEs and a data radio bearer (DRB) identifier (ID)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by sending, to the base station distributed unit, a third message comprising bearer configuration parameters associated with the bearer for the wireless device as taught by 3GPP38.473 because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.478, Pg. 6-7).
However, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of 3GPP38.473 does not disclose the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that the packet duplication is configured for the bearer.
Yang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that the packet duplication is configured for the bearer (¶85, Yang discloses a related parameter corresponding to data duplication comprising an indication that the bearer has been configured for data duplication transmission mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in further view of 3GPP38.473 by requiring the bearer configuration parameters comprise an indication that the packet duplication is configured for the bearer as taught by Yang because control conflicts are avoided by coordinating the two node devices controlling the duplication data transmission of a carrier (Yang, Abstract).
However, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in further view of Yang does not disclose to determine whether packet duplication is configured for a bearer for a wireless device.
Yu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine whether packet duplication is configured for a bearer for a wireless device (¶117 & Fig. 3, Yu discloses determining, by a packet duplication control element of a master cell group (MCG), whether packet duplication Is configured for a user equipment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in further view of Yang by determining whether packet duplication is configured for a bearer for a wireless device as taught by Yu because reliability and robustness of a wireless communication having a guaranteed level of reliability of a correct transmission of data is improved when dynamic packet duplication control is established (Yu, ¶7).
Regarding Claim 34, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in view of Yang in further view of Yu discloses the base station central unit of claim 33.
3GPP38.473, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the third message further comprises at least one of:
a tunnel endpoint identifier of a tunnel for the logical channel (Pgs. 38-40, §9.2.2.10 UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUIRED, 3GPP38.473 discloses that the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQURIED message comprises Tunnels to Be Setup Item IE where the Tunnels to Be Setup Item IE further comprises a GTP Tunnel Endpoint. Pg. 50-51: §9.3.2.1: GTP Tunnel Endpoint, 3GPP38.473 discloses a GTP Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (GTP TEID)); or
an information element indicating that the logical channel is for duplicated packets of the bearer (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 in view of 3GPP38.473 in view of Yang in further view of Yu by requiring that the third message further comprises a tunnel endpoint identifier of a tunnel for the logical channel as taught by Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.473 in view of Yang in further view of Yu because adherence to a technical standard, such as 3GPP, would lead to the benefit of the device being interoperable with other devices having a different manufacturer or vendor (3GPP38.478, Pg. 6-7).
Claims 15 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11533659 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘659 Patent”) in view of Yu et al. (US 20200187282 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yu”).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 35.
Regarding Claim 35, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent discloses the base station central unit of claim 31.
However, Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 does not disclose the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to: receive, from a wireless device, a measurement result of the cell, wherein the measurement result comprises at least one of: a reference signal received power; or a reference signal received quality; and determine, based on the measurement result, packet duplication for a bearer for the wireless device.
Yu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to:
receive, from a wireless device, a measurement result of the cell (¶116 & Fig. 3 (S20 and S30), Yu discloses receiving, by a packet duplication control element of a master cell group (MCG), measurement result from each MCG/SCG MAC layer),
wherein the measurement result comprises at least one of:
a reference signal received power (¶115 & Fig. 3 (S10), Yu discloses that measurements are performed to determine a reference signal received power (RSRP) for each MCG/SCG MAC); or
a reference signal received quality (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”); and
determine, based on the measurement result, packet duplication for a bearer for the wireless device (¶117 & Fig. 3 (S40), Yu discloses determining, by a packet duplication control element of a master cell group (MCG), whether packet duplication Is configured for a user equipment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 28 of the ‘659 Patent in view of 3GPP38.331 by requiring that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the base station central unit to: receive, from a wireless device, a measurement result of the cell, wherein the measurement result comprises at least one of: a reference signal received power; or a reference signal received quality; and determine, based on the measurement result, packet duplication for a bearer for the wireless device as taught by Yu because reliability and robustness of a wireless communication having a guaranteed level of reliability of a correct transmission of data is improved when dynamic packet duplication control is established (Yu, ¶7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 17, 27, and 37 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.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights