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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/13/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election (without traverse) of a group linked to claims 1-11 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/03/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “a response for bearer switching” (line 7). It is suggested to replace it with “a response for the bearer switching” for more clarity. Claims 9 and 18 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “success” (line 10). It is suggested to replace it with “the success” for more clarity. Claim 18 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, it is suggested to amend as follows:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein each of the first DRB and the second DRB is configured as one of: a master cell group (MCG) bearer[[,]]; a first secondary cell group (SCG) bearer[[,]]; a second SCG bearer[[,]]; or a split bearer;
wherein the MCG bearer, the first SCG bearer, and the second SCG bearer are classified as non-split bearers;
wherein the MCG bearer uses radio resources of the MN, the first SCG bearer uses radio resources of the first SN, the second SCG bearer uses radio resources of the second SN, and the split bearer uses all of the radio resources of the MN, the radio resources of the first SN, and the radio resources of the second SN; and
wherein the radio resources of the MN, the radio resources of the first SN, and the radio resources of the second SN belong to different frequency bands.
Claims 19 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Claim 9 recites, “the UP packet” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “the UP data” for more clarity.
Claim 11 recites, “indicating failure” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “indicating the failure” for more clarity.
Claim 18 recites, “A terminal comprising at least one processor,” (line 1). It is suggested to replace it with “A terminal comprising: at least one processor,” for clarity and placing the claim into a proper machine claim (see MPEP 2106.03, section 1; MPEP 2173.05(p), section II).
Claims 2-10 and 19-20 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites, “the split bearer” (line 1). The “split bearer” is an optional limitation in claim 2 on which claim 3 depends. Thus, it is unclear whether the split bearer even exists, since the essential feature regarding the split bearer does not exist in claim 2. Claims 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rational applied to claim 2. For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 7, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jheng et al (US Publication No. 2018/0213456 A1) in view of Lee (US Publication No. 2016/0057802 A1) and further in view of Futaki et al (US Publication No. 2023/0363026 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jheng discloses, a method of a terminal [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0034, a method for a bearer switching process performed by UE 110], comprising:
transmitting user plane (UP) data to at least one node among a master node (MN) or a second secondary node (SN) through a first . . . bearer [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0034, selecting and performing uplink traffic over the active cell group with gNB 130 through at least one bearer (see ¶0033, NR bearer)];
in response to identifying an uplink (UL) coverage loss . . . [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0035, when a blockage condition (i.e., UL coverage loss; note that the blockage condition includes a UL coverage loss since ¶0034 describes an uplink traffic from the UE 110) being detected], determining switching from the first . . . bearer to a second . . bearer based on a bearer switching rule [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0035, determining whether an uplink switch (further see ¶0033, “bearer switching from an NR bearer to an LTE bearer”) which is is required based on the blockage condition exists (i.e., at least one bearer switching rule; further see FIG. 5A and ¶0030, selected number of out-of-sync indications, block error rate (BLER), etc.)];
transmitting a request for bearer switching to the second . . bearer [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0033, in a network assist mode, the UE 110 sends an RRC measurement report to EPC 140];
receiving a response for bearer switching to the second . . bearer [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0033, in a network assist mode, the EPC 140 initiates an RRC connection reconfiguration procedure with the UE 110];
. . . temporarily suspending the first . . . bearer [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0035, suspending transmission between the UE 110 and the active cell group; further see ¶0035, “once this has been achieved, radio link monitoring may continue in order to determine when the blocking condition (or other unacceptable condition) is lifted” and ¶0037, “certain embodiments implement a rapid recovery mechanism employed when it is determined that blockage has been lifted and system 100 is to recover . . . Upon recovery, both the network and the UE 110 can recall its configuration from memory by the resumptive configuration ID. UE 110 may switch traffic to its NR in recovering from a previous switch according to the configuration data stored under the resumptive configuration ID.”; note that the previous switch/first bearer is temporarily suspended so that it can be recovered when the blocking condition is lifted]; and
transmitting the UP data to at least one node among the MN or a first SN through the second . . bearer [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0034, performing uplink traffic over the active cell group with gNB 130 and ¶0035, switching the uplink traffic to an alternative cell group with eNB 120].
Although Jheng discloses, “in response to identifying an uplink (UL) coverage loss, determining switching from the first bearer to a second bearer based on a bearer switching rule, temporarily suspending the first bearer” as set forth above, Jheng does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), in response to identifying an uplink (UL) coverage loss in the second SN, . . . transmitting a request for bearer switching to the second DRB to the MN; receiving a response for bearer switching to the second DRB from the MN; identifying whether a bearer switching result included in the response of bearer switching indicates success or failure; in response to identifying that the bearer switching result indicates success, temporarily suspending the first bearer.
However, Lee discloses,
identifying a loss in the SN [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0108, detecting the occurrence of the RLF in the cell associated with the second BS],
transmitting a request . . . to the MN [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0110-0112, transmitting an RLF related signal including information indicating the occurrence of the RLF in the cell associated with the second BS to the first BS 202 (i.e., MN)];
receiving a response . . . from the MN [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0117, receiving an activation request message from the first BS (i.e., MN) transmitting an RLF related signal including information indicating the occurrence of the RLF in the cell associated with the second BS to the first BS 202 (i.e., MN)];
identifying whether a switching result included in the response of switching indicates success [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0117, the first BS 202 transmits an activation request message when a cell associated with the third BS is configured; note that a success of the reconfiguration/switching with the third BS is implied];
in response to identifying that the switching result indicates success, suspending the first connection1 [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0117 and 0118, in response to receiving the activation request message, resuming/performing communication on the newly configured cell].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Jheng in order to cause the system to be able to rapidly repair a radio link failure in dual-connectivity network, thus improving reliability of the network [e.g., ¶0007-0008 of Lee].
Although Jheng in view of Lee discloses, “a switching from a first bearer to a second bearer” as set forth above, Jheng in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), each of the first bearer to the second bearer is modified to be a “data radio bearer”.
However, Futaki discloses, a switching from a first data radio bearer to a second data radio bearer [¶0101, if an SN terminated MCG DRB to be established immediately is changed to another bearer type (e.g., an SN terminated SCG DRB) upon CPA execution, this IE (1620) indicates the bearer type to which the SN terminated MCG DRB to be changed].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Jheng in view of Lee with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Futaki to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Futaki into the system of Jheng in view of Lee would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to maintain QoS and reliability of the network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 7, Jheng in view of Lee and Futaki discloses, the method according to claim 1 and particularly “the UL coverage loss” set forth above.
Jheng does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lee discloses, wherein the request for bearer switching includes at least one of cause information, the cause information indicates the UL coverage loss [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0111, the RLF-related signal including information representing the occurrence of the RLF in the cell associated with the second BS].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Jheng for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Jheng in view of Lee and Futaki discloses, the method according to claim 1 and particularly “switching from the first DRB to the second DRB” as set forth above.
Jheng in view of Lee and Futaki further discloses, in response to satisfying a predefined bearer recovery condition for the first DRB [¶0101 of Futaki], performing a bearer recovery procedure to recover the first DRB [¶0037 of Jheng, upon recovery, both the network and the UE 110 can recall its configuration from memory by the resumptive configuration ID. UE 110 may switch traffic to its NR in recovering from a previous switch according to the configuration data stored under the resumptive configuration ID].
Regarding claim 18, Jheng discloses, a terminal [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0034, UE 110] comprising at least one processor [¶0023, processor circuitry 110b], wherein the at least one processor causes the terminal to perform [FIGS. 1 and 6; their related descriptions; ¶0034 and 0023, the processor circuitry 110b cause the UE 110 to perform action(s)].
Since claim 18 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jheng et al (US Publication No. 2018/0213456 A1) in view of Lee (US Publication No. 2016/0057802 A1) and further in view of Futaki et al (US Publication No. 2023/0363026 A1) and further in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2022/0095161 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jheng in view of Lee and Futaki discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Jheng in view of Lee and Futaki does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kim discloses, re-establishing at least one QoS mapped to the first DRB to the second DRB [FIG. 3i; its related descriptions; ¶0344, the message may include reconfiguring a specific QoS flow of a specific PDU session from a previous DRB to a new DRB].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Jheng in view of Lee and Futaki with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kim to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Kim into the system of Jheng in view of Lee and Futaki would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to maintain QoS and reliability of the network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9, 11 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ingale et al (US Publication No. 2020/0245401 A1) [¶0372]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Since the term “connection” is introduced by the examiner as a generic term for “a data radio bearer” (originally claimed) for the sake of discussion purpose on how the cited reference(s) is mapped to the claimed invention, there is no alternation or change on the claimed scope or features due to the generic term.