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 .
Respond to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 04 August 2026.
Claims 1-16 are presently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant, in substance, argues,
A) The applied prior art of record fails to disclose “an average UL buffer measure for a User Equipment (UE) using a Buffer Status Report (BSR) provided by the UE”.
B) The applied prior art of record fails to disclose “a UL data volume at a Centralized Unit (CU) – User Plane (CU-UP) for a DRB of the number of split DRBs”.
C) The applied prior art of record fails to disclose “UL physical resource block utilization”.
D) The applied prior art of record fails to disclose “UL cell throughput for each UL cell”.
E) The applied prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “subscribing to UL split threshold parameters…”
F) The applied prior art of record fails teach or suggest “detecting RIC event trigger”
G) The applied prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “analyzing and updating split threshold parameters”.
In response to Applicant’s argument,
A) Dalmiya discloses UL buffer measure for user equipment by determining the amount of uplink data pending for transmission including the total PDCP data volume and RLC data volume pending for initial transmission. Moreover, it identifies BSR as an uplink report carried on PUSCH and describes storing historical buffer information and historical parameter values. Therefore, the reference indeed provides UL buffer/BSR measurement and historical data from which an average is determined (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0045], [0053] and [0162]). Thus, Dalmiya discloses “an average UL buffer measure for a User Equipment (UE) using a Buffer Status Report (BSR) provided by the UE” as currently claimed, meeting the required scope of the claimed limitation.
B) Dalmiya discloses UL data volume associated with split bearer communication including determining whether uplink data is routed through a primary RLC entity, secondary RLC entity or both based on the total amount of PDCP data volume and RLC data volume pending for initial transmission in the two associated RLC entities (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0044] and [0081]). Similarly, Dalmiya discloses that the two RLC entities may correspond to the same radio bearer or respective different radio bearers (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0080]). Therefore, the applied prior art of record discloses determining an aggregate UL data volume associated with multiple bearer/RLC paths in a split-bearer configuration. Thus, the applied prior art of record indeed discloses the argued limitation as currently recited in the claims.
C) Dalmiya discloses traffic-load balancing and dynamic allocation/split of uplink data between LTE and NR radio paths. Wherein data-split behavior is determined based on network and radio conditions including traffic load such that the available uplink radio resources are utilized to accommodate the UE’s uplink traffic (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0041], [0045] and [0068]). Therefore, the disclosed traffic-load information represents and provides the basis for utilization of the uplink physical resource. Thus, disclosing UL PRB utilization as presently recited in the claims.
D) Dalmiya discloses determining uplink throughput associated with the respective first and second RLC entities which correspond to respective LTE and NR uplink paths in the split-bearer configuration, thus providing a throughput measure for each corresponding uplink radio path or cell (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0068]).Therefore, Dalmiya discloses “UL cell throughput for each UL cell” as currently claimed. Thus, meeting the required scope of claimed invention as presented.
E) The base reference, Dalmiya, discloses using parameters to dynamically determine the UL data-split threshold including configured split threshold and multiple UL performance parameters (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0068]). On the other hand, Sivaraj teaches subscribing to and obtaining RAN/KPI information used by the RIC, including information associated with UE traffic flows and cells (see Sivaraj, ¶ [0063] and [0068]). Therefore, the combined references make the argued limitations obvious thus meeting the required scope of the claimed invention as currently recited.
F) Dalmiya discloses trigger events for dynamically determining the UL data-split threshold (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0063]). While Sivaraj teaches detecting a triggered RAN event for near-RT RIC processing (see Sivaraj, ¶ [0061]-[0062]). Therefore, the combined references teach “detecting RIC event trigger” as currently presented in the claims.
G) Dalmiya teaches analyzing UL split-threshold parameters using an ML algorithm to determine data-split threshold and accordingly update data split parameters (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0067] and [0072]). Therefore, the applied prior art of record indeed teaches “analyzing and updating split threshold parameters” as currently claimed.
Applicant employs broad language, which includes the use of word, and phrases, which have broad meanings in the art. In addition, Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim language, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. As the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is forced to interpret the claim limitations as broadly as reasonably possible, in determining patentability of the disclosed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
It is the Examiner’s position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. It is advised that, in order to further expedite the prosecution of the application in response to this action, Applicant should amend the base claims to describe in more narrow detail the true distinguishing features of Applicant’s claim invention.
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response, and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly defines the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dalmiya et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0012050.
Regarding claim 14, Dalmiya discloses a method comprising taking initial values for an Uplink (UL) split threshold for a 4G and 5G leg for a number of split Data Radio Bearers (DRBs), wherein UL split threshold parameters () comprise: an average UL buffer measure for a User Equipment (UE) using a Buffer Status Report (BSR) provided by the UE (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0070] and [0162]; buffer status report is provided); a UL data volume at a Centralized Unit (CU) – User Plane (UP) for a DRB of the number of split DRBs (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0045] and [0047]; split DRBs data volume is disclosed); a UL Physical Resource Block (PRB) utilization (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0049] and [0155]; physical resource block utilization is provided); and a UL Cell throughput for each UL cell (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0024] and [0129]; uplink throughput is determined); communicating the UL split threshold parameters to a 5G CU (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0064] and [0083]; uplink split threshold parameters are transmitted); analyzing the parameters, by the 5G CU, to determine whether to change the values of UL split threshold parameters for some of the number of UL split DRBs, and if so (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0068] and [0084]; UL split threshold parameters are analyzed); updating the UL split threshold parameters at the 5G CU (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0067]; threshold parameter values are updated); and communicating the updated UL split threshold parameters to the UE (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0051] and [0067]; updated uplink split threshold parameter are transmitted).
Regarding claim 15, Dalmiya discloses further comprising: computing the average UL buffer measure with the BSR for a UE periodically at a 5G Distributed Unit (DU) for each UL split and computing the average UL buffer measure with the BSR for a UE periodically at a 4G DU for each UL split DRB (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0070] and [0079]).
Regarding claim 16, Dalmiya discloses further comprising: communicating the periodically computed the average UL buffer measure for the UE at the 5G DU for each UL split to a 5G CU – Control Plance (CU-CP) via an F1-C interface; and communicating the periodically computed the average UL buffer measure for the UE at the 4G DU for each UL split to the 5G CU-CP via an F1-C interface (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0070] and [0162]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalmiya et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0012050 in view of Sivaraj et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0377804.
Regarding claim 1, Dalmiya discloses a method comprising taking initial values for an Uplink (UL) split threshold for a 4G and 5G leg for a number of split Data Radio Bearers (DRBs), wherein UL split threshold parameters (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0004] and [0039]; initial value of the UL split threshold is obtained) comprise: an average UL buffer measure for a User Equipment (UE) using a Buffer Status Report (BSR) provided by the UE (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0070] and [0162]; buffer status report is provided); a UL data volume at a Centralized Unit (CU) – User Plane (CU-UP) for a DRB of the number of split DRBs (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0045] and [0047]; split DRBs data volume is disclosed); a UL Physical Resource Block (PRB) utilization (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0049] and [0155]; physical resource block utilization is provided); a UL Cell throughput for each UL cell (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0024] and [0129]; uplink throughput is determined); subscribing to the UL split threshold parameters from an gNodeB (gNB) or eNodeB (eNB) E2 node (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0028] and [0125]; uplink split threshold is subscribed to by end users); detecting, by the E2 node, an RIC event trigger (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0077]; detecting a trigger event is disclosed); analyzing the parameters, to determine whether to change the values of UL split threshold parameters for some of the number of UL split DRBs, and if so (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0068] and [0084]; UL split threshold parameters are analyzed); updating the UL split threshold parameters at the E2 node (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0067]; threshold parameter values are updated); and communicating the updated UL split threshold parameters to the UE (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0051] and [0067]; updated uplink split threshold parameter are transmitted).
Although Dalmiya discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose the use of a Near-Real-Time Radio Access Network (RAN) Intelligent Controller (RIC) (near-RT RIC).
Sivaraj teaches the use of a near-RT RIC in a split bearers (see Sivaraj, ¶ [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Sivaraj with that of Dalmiya in order to efficiently make real-time decisions on uplink traffic distribution across bearers thus improving the overall performance.
Regarding claim 2, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: computing the average UL buffer measure with the BSR for a UE periodically at a 5G Distributed Unit (DU) for each UL split; and computing the average UL buffer measure with the BSR for a UE periodically at a 4G DU for each UL split DRB (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0070] and [0079]).
Regarding claim 3, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: communicating the periodically computed the average UL buffer measure for the UE at the 5G DU for each UL split to a 5G CU - Control Plane (CU-CP) via an F1-C interface; and communicating the periodically computed the average UL buffer measure for the UE at the 4G DU for each UL split to the 5G CU-CP via the F1-C interface (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0070] and [0162]).
Regarding claim 4, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: computing the BSR for a corresponding Logical Channel Group ID (LCG ID) in the 4G network and the 5G network; wherein the 4G DU and the 5G DU each identify the BSR in a buffer size field of the corresponding LCG ID (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0159]-[0160).
Regarding claim 5, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: mapping each of a BSR index (k) to a buffer size in a range (b1,b2] in bytes; and computing the lower value of the range; or computing an average of the range (average of b1+1 and b2) while computing average BSR (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0023] and [0162]).
Regarding claim 6, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: informing, by the UE, the BSR for the 4G leg and 5G leg to the respective 4G DU and 5GU; computing the average BSR at the 4GDU and 5G DU or communicating the BSR to the near-RT-RIC and computing the average BSR at the near-RT-RIC (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0162] and Sivaraj, ¶ [0072]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches wherein an E2 protocol message includes an object for communicating the parameters from the 4G DU and the 5G DU to the near-RT-RIC (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0093] and Sivaraj, ¶ [0068]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches wherein the analyzing the parameters, by the near-RT RIC, to determine whether to dynamically change the values of UL split threshold parameters for some of the number of UL split DRBs comprises: determining if a BSR average across the 4G leg and the 5G leg for the split DRB for a time interval is above a configured threshold and is high; determining if a CU-UP data volumes for the split DRB is below a configured threshold; and reducing the value of the UL split threshold for the DRB and communicating the reduced value to the 4G CU and the 5G CU (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0047] and [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: communicating, by the 4G CU, the reduced value to the UE (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 10, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: analyzing, by the near-RT-RIC, the UL PRB utilization for 4G DU and the 5G DU and identifies the 5G leg or 4G leg where a corresponding scheduler can give the UE optimal UL data transmission (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0068] and Sivaraj, ¶ [0072]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: increasing, by the near-RT RIC, the UL cell throughput when the UL CU-UP data volume starts going up for a DRB or a packet drops at the CU-UP for UL cell throughput; or increasing, by the near-RT RIC, the UL cell throughput when the UL CU-UP data volume starts going up for a DRB or a packet drops at the CU-UP for UL cell throughput (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0024], [0129] and Sivaraj, ¶ [0072]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: communicating the increased UL cell throughput to a 4G CU, and communicating, by the 4G CU, the updated UL split threshold to the UE (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0041] and Sivaraj, ¶ [0131]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Dalmiya-Sivaraj teaches further comprising: decreasing, by the near-RT-RIC, the UL split threshold for some DRBs when both a UL cell throughput of 4G cell and a 5G cell is below a configured threshold; or decreasing, by the near-RT-RIC, the UL split threshold for some DRBs that were sending most of their data via the 5G leg when a UL cell throughput of a 5G UL cell throughput is above a configured threshold and is high and the throughput of 4G UL cell throughput is below a configured threshold and is low (see Dalmiya, ¶ [0067], [0091] and (Sivaraj, ¶ [0072]). Same motivation utilized for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Prior Art of Record
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights