Response to Arguments
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to communication filed on 11/28/2023.
Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are currently amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please discussion of rejection below based on different portions of Paladugu that read on the amended claims as discussed below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al (US 20190387561).
Regarding claim 1, Paladugu discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, UE 115’s and BTS105’s; Fig. 2, UE 115-a and gNB 105-a and 205-a – 205-c) connected to UEs and BTs connected) first distributed unit (DU) associated with a first radio link control (RLC) entity and a second DU associated with a second RLC entity in a wireless communication system (Abstract: “A wireless communications system may support multi-connectivity for a user equipment (UE) with multiple distributed units (DUs) under one central unit (CU), the DUs and the CU belonging to a base station.”), the method comprising:
obtaining uplink data ([0010] states that “… include transmitting a capability message (e.g., uplink data) to a base station indicating a multi-connectivity capability of the UE to support more than two concurrent active cell group connections, transmitting, to the base station, one or more measurement reports that provide measurement information (e.g., uplink data) for cells in proximity to the UE.” Thus, uplink data is provided); and
for concurrent connected mode operations between the UE and the base station, transmit to the UE, responsive to the capability message and the one or more measurement reports, a multi-connectivity configuration that includes the cell group set [e.g., downlink data], and communicate with the UE via the set of active cell groups in accordance with the multi-connectivity configuration.”) or transmitting the uplink data to a base station ( wherein data to be transmitted on a data radio bearer (DRB) is replicated across multiple communication links corresponding to multiple cell groups, … the UE may replicate an uplink packet and transmit the uplink packet using multiple cell groups of the multi-connectivity scheme [0091]) by using at least one of the first RLC entity and the second RLC entity ( [0015]: “A Radio Link Control (RLC) layer may in some cases perform packet segmentation and reassembly to communicate over logical channels. … the RRC protocol layer may provide establishment, configuration, and maintenance of an RRC connection between a UE 115 and a base station 105 or core network 130 supporting radio bearers for user plane data”).
Paladugu in a first embodiment does not expressly disclose wherein whether to use both of the first RLC entity and the second RLC entity is determined by predetermined threshold related to data volume of the uplink data.
However, in different embodiments, Paladugu discloses multiple cell groups 215 may be established as controlling cell groups, where RLF is only declared for the base station 105-a if each of the controlling cell groups declare RLF. In some cases, RLF may be declared for if a percentage or number of controlling cell groups which declare RLF is above at least one threshold. In some cases, a controlling cell group may be similar to a master cell group in a dual connectivity scheme. However, a UE 115 established for multi-connectivity may be capable of having multiple controlling cell groups (Paladugu, [0136]), which DU 205 may include a radio link control (RLC) entity and a media access control (MAC) entity, such that UE 115-a may establish RRC connection management for each of the cell groups.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combine the first embodiment with second embodiments of Paladugu to include use both of the first RLC entity and the second RLC entity is determined by predetermined threshold related to data volume of the uplink data as taught by Paladugu in order to save resources.
Regarding claim 2, Paladugu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein thFig. 5 and [0154]: “Each DU 505 may provide a cell group 515, each cell group 515 consisting of a set of cells”), and at least one cell corresponding to a second DU forms a second subcell group ([0154] “… In the illustrated example, DU 505-a may provide cell group 515-a (e.g., CG1), DU 505-b may provide cell group 515-b (e.g., CG2), DU 505-c may provide cell group 515-c (e.g., CG3), DU 505-d may provide cell group 515-d (e.g., CG4), DU 505-e may provide cell group 515-e (e.g., CG5), and DU 505-f may provide cell group 515-f (e.g., CG6).”); (Abstract: “The UE may maintain a set of active cell groups and a set of inactive cell groups.”),.
Regarding claim 3, Paladugu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the for concurrent connected mode operations between the UE and the base station, transmit to the UE, responsive to the capability message and the one or more measurement reports, a multi-connectivity configuration that includes the cell group set) or the transmitting of the uplink data ([0185] states that “… At 830, the CU 810 may transmit a UE context setup request to DU 805-b. … At 835, DU 805-b may send a UE context setup response to the CU 810. The UE context setup response may include a cell group configuration.” Further, [0186] states that “At 840, the CU 810 may send a downlink RRC transfer indicator to DU 805-a. The downlink RRC transfer indicator may include an RRC reconfiguration message. At 845, DU 805-a may transmit the RRC reconfiguration message to UE 115-d. … the RRC reconfiguration may include a radio bearer configuration and a DU multi-connectivity cell group parameter [e.g., a “DUMulti-ConnCellGroupToAddModList” parameter].” And, [0174] states that “The CU 710 may indicate to the UE 115 which radio bearers are configured for PDCP replication and on which RLC entities to replicate packets by setting a replication flag for the radio bearer and indicating the RLC entities for replication.” [0175] “To configure PDCP aggregation of a particular radio bearer, the CU 710 may send an RRC message to the UE 115 to indicate on which logical channels corresponding to the radio bearer PDCP packet aggregation is to be performed. … ” [0176] “[0176] For example, the CU 710 may configure the UE 115 to use cell group 715-b and cell group 715-n for a high throughput service. The CU 710 may indicate to use RLC entity 775-b of DU 705-b and RLC entity 775-n of DU 705-n. If, for example, the UE 115 has 30 megabytes of data to transmit, the UE 115 may transmit 20 megabytes using cell group 715-b and 10 megabytes using cell group 715-n.”),
transmitting the uplink data “A Radio Link Control (RLC) layer may in some cases perform packet segmentation and reassembly to communicate over logical channels. … the RRC protocol layer may provide establishment, configuration, and maintenance of an RRC connection between a UE 115 and a base station 105 or core network 130 supporting radio bearers for user plane data”) and ([0174] “… the UE 115 may transmit 20 megabytes using cell group 715-b and 10 megabytes using cell group 715-n. How the UE 115 divides data throughput among cell groups 715 configured for PDCP aggregation may be based on the characteristics of the cell groups 715, such as requirements (e.g., latency, reliability, throughput, etc.) and connection quality. …” Further, [0174] “The CU 710 may indicate to the UE 115 which radio bearers are configured for PDCP replication and on which RLC entities to replicate packets by setting a replication flag for the radio bearer and indicating the RLC entities for replication.”).
Regarding claim 4, Paladugu discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving a configured grant (CG) message corresponding to the first DU (Fig. 9 and [0194] “At 945, CU 910 may transmit a downlink RRC message transfer to DU 905-a, and DU 905-a may transmit an RRC reconfiguration message to UE 115-e at 950. … the downlink RRC message transfer may include the RRC reconfiguration message and configurations for the PDCP entity”); and transmitting a configured grant confirmation (CGC) message for the CG message by using uplink radio resources of a cell belonging to a corresponding subcell group ([Fig. 9, 955, “RRC configuration Complete”] and [0194] “At 955, UE 115-e may transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message to DU 905-a, and DU 905-a may send the RRC reconfiguration complete message to the CU 910 at 960 as an uplink RRC transfer.”).
Regarding claim 6, Paladugu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, based on a comparison between an amount of the uplink data and a preset threshold, determining at least one cell to be used for the transmitting of the uplink data ([0027] states that “receiving an indication of which cell groups of the set of active cell groups may be to be configured for PDCP aggregation such that data associated with a DRB (e.g., “data to be transmitted on a data radio bearer”) having a throughput requirement above at least one threshold may be distributed across the indicated cell groups having an aggregate throughput that satisfies the throughput requirement of the DRB.” [0128] states that “the at least one threshold may be a set of predetermined thresholds, with each of the set of predetermined thresholds corresponding to one of the indicated cell groups, and where the data associated with the DRB may be distributed across the indicated cell groups in accordance with the set of predetermined thresholds.”).
Regarding claim 7, Paladugu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, via a signaling radio bearer (SRB) corresponding to a first cell group, an uplink radio resource control (RRC) message to the first cell group ([0247] “… the controlling cell group component 1730 may receive, via a RRC message, an indicator that the two or more of the set of active cell groups are controlling cell groups. … the controlling cell group component 1730 may receive an allocation of SRB resources for each of the controlling cell groups. In some examples, the controlling cell group component 1730 may identify the controlling cell groups based on receipt of the allocation of SRB resources for the controlling cell groups.”), or transmitting, via the SRB corresponding to the first cell group, an RRC reconfiguration message to a second cell group in which a corresponding SRB is not configured.
Claim 8 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Paladugu, Figure 21, a device).
Claim 9 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Paladugu, Claim 20 “A method for wireless communication at a base station”).
Claim 10 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 7, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al (US 20190387561) in view of Li (11,700,553).
Regarding claim 5, Paladugu discloses the method of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose in case a radio link failure (RLF) occurs in a first cell of the first subcell group, transmitting, to the base station, a Failure Information message via a second cell included in the second subcell group
However, Li discloses silent in case a radio link failure (RLF) occurs in a first cell of the at least one cell, transmitting, to the base station, a Failure Information message via a second cell included in a second subcell group that is different from a first subcell group including the first cell (col. 10, ll. 7-11, “a UE may monitor a PScell for radio link failure of the SgNB, and upon S-RLF detection, the UE may select the best/suitable cell of SCG as target PScell and initiate random access procedure to the target PScell. Optionally, a dedicated preamble can be preconfigured to facilitate the access.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism of Paladugu with the teachings of Li for the purpose of having the UE first attempt PSCell recovery in the SCG cells over air interface as the recovery can be faster than by reporting SCG failure to MgNB and then relying on MgNB to change SeNB/PScell over X2/Xn interface. Furthermore, a fast recovery may have the benefit of less service interruption (See Li, col. 10, ll. 20-24).
Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
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 JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights