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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-14 were formerly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) . Pursuant to applicant’s amendments these rejections have been withdrawn.
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 formerly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) . Pursuant to applicant’s amendments these rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7,9 and 11-14 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
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.
Claim 1,3,7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (WO 2013/096555 A1, “Anderson”) in view of Li et al. (WO 2021/018213 A1, “Li”). EP 3 975 649 A1 is cited as an English-language family publication corresponding to Li and is used below to identify the English-language disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, “receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a network, a first data unit based on a Group-Radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI);”
Anderson teaches group-addressed RNTI operation. Anderson describes a CSR-gRNTI that may be common to a group of UEs and used for signaling/resources applicable to the group. See Anderson, Fig. 22 and the associated CSR-gRNTI discussion. Anderson therefore teaches use of a group RNTI in communications involving a plurality of UEs.
“based on decoding the first data unit being failed, transmitting, by the UE to the network, a negative response related to the first data unit;”
Anderson teaches UE-originated HARQ ACK/NACK feedback for downlink transmissions. Anderson explains that PUCCH formats 1a and 1b are used for transmission of HARQ ACK/NACK information and that PUCCH format 3 may provide HARQ ACK/NACK feedback for PDSCH transmissions. See Anderson, p. 7).
However, Anderson does not expressly teach this feedback as part of the particular claimed sequence involving failed G-RNTI-addressed service data followed by C-RNTI retransmission.
Li teaches that a terminal determines whether transmission of a data packet of a first service was successful and, when transmission fails, sends feedback information to the access-network device indicating the failure. After receiving the failure feedback, the access-network device retransmits the data packet. See Li, corresponding English disclosure in EP 3 975 649 A1, ¶[0057].
receiving, by the UE from the network, a second data unit based on a Cell-RNTI (C-RNTI); (page 49, lines 1-11, figure 23)
Anderson teaches C-RNTI-based UE-specific signaling, including signaling addressed to the UE’s C-RNTI. Anderson’s random-access discussion, for example, identifies an uplink grant addressed to the UE’s C-RNTI.
(figure 22).
However, Anderson does not expressly teach that the claimed C-RNTI-addressed second data unit is received as part of a same-service retransmission following failed G-RNTI operation.
Li teaches that, for the same service, either G-RNTI or C-RNTI may be selected for scheduling and that, when scheduling using G-RNTI consecutively fails, scheduling using C-RNTI may be performed. See Li, English equivalent EP ’649 ¶[0058].
“based on decoding the second data unit being successfully completed and based on the second data unit being a retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, transferring, by the UE, the second data unit to a first logical channel identified based on the G-RNTI;”
Anderson teaches HARQ retransmission generally but does not expressly teach that a C-RNTI-received retransmission of earlier G-RNTI service data is transferred to the logical channel associated with the original G-RNTI service.
Li teaches that data packets belonging to the same service may be received using respective first and second RNTIs and combined onto the same radio bearer. See ¶[0059]. Li further teaches sequential reception using C-RNTI and G-RNTI, followed by combining the data at the RLC and/or PDCP layer. See ¶[0060].
More particularly, Li teaches that a terminal receives a multicast service using C-RNTI 1, where the multicast service has logical-channel identifier LCH1, and also receives the multicast service using G-RNTI, where the multicast service likewise has logical-channel identifier LCH1, after which the data is combined at the RLC layer. See ¶[0061], Fig. 6.
Accordingly, Li teaches that data delivered under C-RNTI may remain associated with the same multicast logical channel as data delivered under G-RNTI.
“based on decoding the second data unit being successfully completed and based on the second data unit not being a retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, transferring, by the UE, the second data unit to a second logical channel identified based on the C-RNTI.”
Anderson does not expressly teach this conditional logical-channel selection based upon whether the C-RNTI-received data is or is not the retransmission of the earlier G-RNTI data.
Li teaches different logical-channel associations for C-RNTI-received service data. In the Fig. 6 embodiment, the terminal receives under C-RNTI 1 a multicast service associated with LCH1 and a unicast service associated with LCH2, while the G-RNTI multicast service is likewise associated with LCH1. See Li, English equivalent EP ’649 ¶[0061], Fig. 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s LTE group-RNTI/HARQ arrangement according to Li so that, when group-addressed service delivery is unsuccessful, the same service data may subsequently be delivered using UE-specific C-RNTI scheduling while retaining the appropriate service/logical-channel association.
Li expressly provides a reason for doing so by teaching selection between G-RNTI and C-RNTI for the same service and specifically using C-RNTI when G-RNTI scheduling fails. See Li ¶[0058]. Li further teaches that C-RNTI- and G-RNTI-received multicast data can remain associated with the same LCH1. See ¶¶[0059]-[0061].
Thus, the modification would predictably provide reliable retransmission to the affected UE while maintaining the proper RLC/logical-channel processing of the original multicast service.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 recites :“The method of claim 1, wherein the first data unit comprises a broadcasted data unit, and the second data unit comprises a unicasted data unit.”
Anderson teaches group/common signaling through CSR-gRNTI and separately teaches UE-specific C-RNTI signaling (figure 22).
Anderson does not expressly identify the particular first and second data units of claim 1 as the claimed broadcasted and
unicasted data units in the claimed sequence. Li teaches group delivery using G-RNTI and individual-terminal scheduling using C-RNTI for the same service, including C-RNTI scheduling following failed G-RNTI scheduling. See Li/EP '649 ¶[0058]; see also ¶¶[0060]-[0061] (multicast service under G-RNTI/C-RNTI and unicast service under C-RNTI).
Thus, It would have been obvious to use individually addressed C-RNTI delivery for a terminal requiring
retransmission after group delivery, thereby directing the subsequent data to the affected terminal rather than unnecessarily repeating group delivery.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Li.
“A user equipment (UE) comprising: at least one processor; and at least one computer memory storing instructions that,
when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform operations comprising:”
Anderson teaches UE hardware and processing for LTE communication, including UE processing of group/common RNTI
signaling, C-RNTI signaling, and HARQ feedback.( See Anderson, system/UE embodiments and Fig. 22)
“receiving a first data unit based on a Group-Radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) from a network;”
Anderson teaches group RNTI operation through CSR-gRNTI. See Anderson, Fig. 22 and associated discussion.
“based on decoding the first data unit being failed, transmitting a negative response related to the first data unit to the
network;”
Anderson teaches UE HARQ ACK/NACK feedback for PDSCH. See Anderson, p. 7. Li supplies the claimed failed-service
sequence: terminal failure feedback followed by retransmission. See Li/EP '649 ¶[0057].
“receiving a second data unit based on a Cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) from the network;”
Anderson teaches C-RNTI-based UE-specific signaling. Li teaches C-RNTI scheduling of the same service when G-RNTI
scheduling fails. See Li/EP '649 ¶[0058].
“based on decoding the second data unit being successfully completed and based on the second data unit being a
retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, transferring the second data unit to a first logical channel identified based on
the G-RNTI; and”
Li teaches same-service data under different RNTIs combined on the same bearer (¶[0059]), C-RNTI/G-RNTI reception with
RLC/PDCP combining (¶[0060]), and LCH1 for multicast data under both C-RNTI and G-RNTI (¶[0061], Fig. 6).
“based on decoding the second data unit being successfully completed and based on the second data unit not being a
retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, transferring, by the UE, the second data unit to a second logical channel
identified based on the C-RNTI.”
Li teaches C-RNTI reception of multicast data on LCH1 and unicast data on LCH2. See Li/EP '649 ¶[0061], Fig. 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s LTE group-RNTI/HARQ arrangement according to Li so that, when group-addressed service delivery is unsuccessful, the same service data may subsequently be delivered using UE-specific C-RNTI scheduling while retaining the appropriate service/logical-channel association.
Li expressly provides a reason for doing so by teaching selection between G-RNTI and C-RNTI for the same service and specifically using C-RNTI when G-RNTI scheduling fails. See Li ¶[0058]. Li further teaches that C-RNTI- and G-RNTI-received multicast data can remain associated with the same LCH1. See ¶¶[0059]-[0061].
Thus, the modification would predictably provide reliable retransmission to the affected UE while maintaining the proper RLC/logical-channel processing of the original multicast service.
.
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the first data unit comprises a broadcasted data unit, and the second data unit comprises a unicasted data unit.”
Anderson teaches group/common CSR-gRNTI signaling and UE-specific C-RNTI signaling (figure 22) . Li teaches G-RNTI/C-RNTI
scheduling for the same service and distinguishes multicast and unicast service reception under the RNTI arrangements. (See Li/EP '649 ¶[0058] and ¶[0061], Fig. 6.) Thus, It would have been obvious to use individually addressed C-RNTI delivery for a terminal requiring
retransmission after group delivery, thereby directing the subsequent data to the affected terminal rather than unnecessarily repeating group delivery.
Regarding claim 13, “An apparatus for a user equipment (UE), the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one computer
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform operations
comprising:”
Anderson teaches UE processing apparatus/hardware for LTE operation, including RNTI signaling and HARQ processing.
“receiving a first data unit based on a Group-Radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) from a network (figure 22, page 7);”
Anderson teaches group RNTI operation through CSR-gRNTI. See Anderson, Fig. 22 and associated discussion.
“based on decoding the first data unit being failed, transmitting a negative response related to the first data unit to the
network;”
Anderson teaches UE HARQ ACK/NACK feedback for PDSCH (p. 7); Li teaches terminal failure feedback followed by
retransmission (¶[0057]).
“receiving a second data unit based on a Cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) from the network;”
Anderson teaches C-RNTI signaling; Li teaches use of C-RNTI for the same service when G-RNTI scheduling fails (¶[0058]).
“based on decoding the second data unit being successfully completed and based on the second data unit being a
retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, transferring the second data unit to a first logical channel identified based on the G-RNTI; and Li teaches same-service data under first/second RNTIs on the same bearer and LCH1 for multicast under C-RNTI/G-RNTI. (See ¶¶[0059]-[0061], Fig. 6.)
“based on decoding the second data unit being successfully completed and based on the second data unit not being a
retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, transferring, by the UE, the second data unit to a second logical channel
identified based on the C-RNTI.”
Li teaches C-RNTI multicast on LCH1 and C-RNTI unicast on LCH2. See ¶[0061], Fig. 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s LTE group-RNTI/HARQ arrangement according to Li so that, when group-addressed service delivery is unsuccessful, the same service data may subsequently be delivered using UE-specific C-RNTI scheduling while retaining the appropriate service/logical-channel association.
Li expressly provides a reason for doing so by teaching selection between G-RNTI and C-RNTI for the same service and specifically using C-RNTI when G-RNTI scheduling fails. See Li ¶[0058]. Li further teaches that C-RNTI- and G-RNTI-received multicast data can remain associated with the same LCH1. See ¶¶[0059]-[0061].
Thus, the modification would predictably provide reliable retransmission to the affected UE while maintaining the proper RLC/logical-channel processing of the original multicast service.
Regarding Claim 14, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a user equipment (UE) to perform operations comprising:”
Anderson teaches processor-executed UE functionality for LTE communication. Implementing the known UE operations as processor-executable instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium would have been a conventional implementation of the disclosed UE functionality.
“receiving a first data unit based on a Group-Radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) from a network;”
Anderson teaches CSR-gRNTI group operation. (See Anderson, Fig. 22 and associated discussion)
“based on decoding the first data unit being failed, transmitting a negative response related to the first data unit to the network;”
Anderson teaches UE HARQ ACK/NACK feedback for PDSCH (p. 7); Li teaches failure feedback followed by retransmission
(¶[0057]).
“receiving a second data unit based on a Cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) from the network;”
Anderson teaches C-RNTI signaling; Li teaches C-RNTI scheduling following G-RNTI failure for the same service (¶[0058]).
“based on decoding the second data unit being successfully completed and based on the second data unit being a
retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, transferring the second data unit to a first logical channel identified based on the G-RNTI; and Li teaches same-service first/second-RNTI data combined on a bearer and multicast LCH1 under both C-RNTI and G-RNTI. (See ¶¶[0059]-[0061], Fig. 6.)
“based on decoding the second data unit being successfully completed and based on the second data unit not being a
retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, transferring, by the UE, the second data unit to a second logical channel
identified based on the C-RNTI.”
Li teaches C-RNTI multicast on LCH1 and C-RNTI unicast on LCH2. See ¶[0061], Fig. 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s LTE group-RNTI/HARQ arrangement according to Li so that, when group-addressed service delivery is unsuccessful, the same service data may subsequently be delivered using UE-specific C-RNTI scheduling while retaining the appropriate service/logical-channel association.
Li expressly provides a reason for doing so by teaching selection between G-RNTI and C-RNTI for the same service and specifically using C-RNTI when G-RNTI scheduling fails. See Li ¶[0058]. Li further teaches that C-RNTI- and G-RNTI-received multicast data can remain associated with the same LCH1. See ¶¶[0059]-[0061].
Thus, the modification would predictably provide reliable retransmission to the affected UE while maintaining the proper RLC/logical-channel processing of the original multicast service.
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et
al. (WO 2013/096555 A1, hereinafter Anderson) and Li in view of Kadiri et al. (US 2021/0068004 A1, hereinafter
Kadiri).
Regarding Claims 5 and 11,recites “wherein the first logical channel is identified from a first logical channel pool related to the G-RNTI, and the second logical channel is identified from a second logical channel pool related to the C-RNTI.”
Anderson teaches distinct group/common CSR-gRNTI and UE-specific C-RNTI communication contexts but does not expressly teach the claimed first and second logical-channel pools. Li teaches same-service G-RNTI/C-RNTI processing at RLC/PDCP (¶¶[0059]-[0060]) and teaches LCH1 for multicast under G-RNTI/C-RNTI and LCH2 for a C-RNTI unicast service (¶[0061], Fig. 6). These passages teach distinct RNTI/service-to-logical-channel associations, but the reviewed Li text does not expressly recite 'logical channel pools. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s LTE group-RNTI/HARQ arrangement according to Li so that, when group-addressed service delivery is unsuccessful, the same service data may subsequently be delivered using UE-specific C-RNTI scheduling while retaining the appropriate service/logical-channel association.
Li expressly provides a reason for doing so by teaching selection between G-RNTI and C-RNTI for the same service and specifically using C-RNTI when G-RNTI scheduling fails. See Li ¶[0058]. Li further teaches that C-RNTI- and G-RNTI-received multicast data can remain associated with the same LCH1. See ¶¶[0059]-[0061].
Thus, the modification would predictably provide reliable retransmission to the affected UE while maintaining the proper RLC/logical-channel processing of the original multicast service.
, Anderson and Li discloses all subject matter of the claimed invention with
the exception of wherein identifying the logical channel comprises identifying the logical channel from a
logical channel pool related to the G-RNTI. Kadiri discloses wherein identifying the logical channel
comprises identifying the logical channel from a logical channel pool related to the G-RNTI (91[0058,
wherein the LCID includes the logical channel pool). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to make the proposed modification of the
logical channel pool as disclosed by Kadiri along with the system of Anderson and Li. The logical channel pool
may be implemented through software to provide for transmission (¶[0058], Kadiri).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12,“wherein, based on the second data unit being the retransmitted data unit of the first data unit, the second data unit is scrambled based on the C-RNTI and a header of each of the first and second data units includes a field related to a logical channel identifier for identifying the second logical channel from the second logical channel pool related to the G-RNTI.”
Anderson teaches RNTI-based LTE signaling/scrambling and HARQ retransmission generally. Anderson does not expressly teach the claimed combination of a C-RNTI-based retransmission while retaining the logical-channel/service association of the earlier G-RNTI data. Li teaches failure feedback/retransmission (¶[0057]), switching from failed G-RNTI scheduling to C-RNTI scheduling for the same service (¶[0058]), and retention of LCH1 for multicast data received under both C-RNTI and G-RNTI (¶¶[0059]-[0061], Fig. 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s LTE group-RNTI/HARQ arrangement according to Li so that, when group-addressed service delivery is unsuccessful, the same service data may subsequently be delivered using UE-specific C-RNTI scheduling while retaining the appropriate service/logical-channel association.
Li expressly provides a reason for doing so by teaching selection between G-RNTI and C-RNTI for the same service and specifically using C-RNTI when G-RNTI scheduling fails. See Li ¶[0058]. Li further teaches that C-RNTI- and G-RNTI-received multicast data can remain associated with the same LCH1. See ¶¶[0059]-[0061].
Thus, the modification would predictably provide reliable retransmission to the affected UE while maintaining the proper RLC/logical-channel processing of the original multicast service.
Anderson and Li discloses all subject matter of the claimed invention with
the exception of wherein a header of each of the first and second data units includes a field related to a
logical channel identifier, and the logical channel identifier identifies the logical channel from the logical
channel pool related to the G-RNTI. Kadiri discloses wherein a header of each of the first and second
data units includes a field related to a logical channel identifier, and the logical channel identifier
identifies the logical channel from the logical channel pool related to the G-RNTI (91[0056], ||[0062]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the
invention to make the proposed modification of the logical channel pool as disclosed by Kadiri along
with the system of Anderson. The logical channel pool may be implemented through software to
provide for transmission (9[0058], Kadiri).
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 ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights