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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions of base station determining latency and throughput, message transmission frequency control and buffer management, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that restriction is improper as a search can be made without serious burden, even if groups 1-4 are distinct or independent invention as the main entities (DU/CU/CU-UP) and optimization objectives are same within groups. This is not found persuasive because the type of optimization requires different signaling techniques in the art and the search is focused on the core method of optimization. For example, the group 1 is focused on changing frequency of transmission of messages for one subset of DRB and maintaining transmission frequency for the rest of messages, identifying DRB based on parameters. The search is focused on how to change transmission frequency for certain radio bearers, and further in the environment of CU-DU. Group 2 is directed to latency and throughput of the traffic, which is focused on search for concept of traffic control and delay requirements. The concept could be implemented in any two entities, including CU-DU environment. Group 3 is directed to determining if received data packets are in sequence and optimizing message transmission based on the holes or gaps in sequence numbers. Group 4 is directed to buffer management and wastage for buffer size. Thus, although the groups are implemented in same environment, all four groups have different core concepts, which cause the serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 have been examined, of which claim 1 is independent.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “near-RT”, claim 7 recites “RT” wherein the full form for “RT” is not recited in claim.
Further, in claim 5, the subscribing limitation and detecting limitation are not separated by semi colon.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 3 recite “maintaining a frequency” and “remaining DRBs”, which appear to refer to same limitations as in claim 1. For clarity and the proper antecedent basis, the examiner suggests to amend limitations as “maintaining the [[a]] frequency” and “the remaining DRBs”.
Claim 5 recites “eNB E2 node”, followed by “the E2 node”, which is unclear if both recitation refer to same node or different.
Claim 5 recites “the subset of DDDS transmissions”, which has lack of antecedent basis in the claim. The limitation “subset of DRBs”, “DDDS message transmissions” is recited in claim 1, but “subset of DDDS message transmissions” is not recited.
Further, claim 5, the analyzing limitation recites “and if so;”. The semicolon at the end of limitation makes the limitation incomplete. It is unclear if the limitation refers to “if determined to change the frequency, updating the parameters”, or “if so” refers to any other limitations, or the updating limitation is performed only if determined to change frequency.
Claim 6 recites “these DRBs” and “the DRBs”, which are preceded by “a number of DRBs” in claim 6 and “subset of DRBs” and “remaining DRBs” in claim 1. It is unclear, which DRBs are further limited.
Further, in limitation “for each of the DRBs or for the subset DRBs”, is followed by multiple recitations of “that DRB”. It is unclear, which DRB of the subset is further limited. Claim 7 is rejected based on dependency.
Further, Claim 7 recites “the RT RIC”, which has lack of antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itaba (US 20210377779)
Regarding claim 1, Itaba teaches a method for a radio access network (RAN) base station (BS) (fig 7 is sequence diagram of radio communication and data bearer establishment between MeNB 40 and SeNB 50, para 95-106) comprising:
selecting a subset of Data Radio Bearers (DRBs) from a set of DRBs (para 96-99: the MeNB 40 transmits the DRB Setup Request message, including the number (the DRB #1) of the DRB to be established and the number of the group (the Group #a) into which the DRB is classified, to the SeNB 50, and similarly, the MeNB 40 classifies a DRB #2 into a Group #b, a DRB #3 into the Group #a, and a DRB #4 into a Group #c; here, DRB#1 and #3 are classified in group #a, which is considered subset of DRBs from set of four DRBs);
changing a frequency of DL Data Delivery Status (DDDS) message transmissions for the subset of DRBs (para 106: in this example embodiment, as the SeNB 50 can transmit a DDDS messages per group, it is not necessary to generate DDDS messages for each DRB and transmit them to the MeNB 40 as in the case of related art; fig 7, s10 and para 101 describes that DDDS message is sent for group #a, which is considered as one message for two DRBs 1 and 3, thus changes/reduces message transmission frequency for the subset of DRBs); and
maintaining a frequency or reducing the frequency of DDDS transmissions for remaining DRBs of the set of DRBs (in fig 7, DRB# 2 is classified in group #b and DRB #4 is classified in group #c; in step s11, fig 7, DDDS message for group #b is sent, which is same as for DRB # 2, thus considered maintained frequency for remaining DRBs of the four DRBs).
Regarding claim 2, Itaba further teaches
reducing the frequency of the DDDS message transmissions for the subset of DRBs (para 106: in this example embodiment, as the SeNB 50 can transmit a DDDS messages per group, it is not necessary to generate DDDS messages for each DRB and transmit them to the MeNB 40 as in the case of related art; fig 7, s10 and para 101 describes that DDDS message is sent for group #a, which is considered as one message for two DRBs 1 and 3, thus changes/reduces message transmission frequency for the subset of DRBs); and
maintaining a frequency of the DDDS transmissions for remaining DRBs of the set of DRBs (in fig 7, DRB# 2 is classified in group #b and DRB #4 is classified in group #c; in step s11, fig 7, DDDS message for group #b is sent, which is same as for DRB # 2, thus considered maintained frequency for remaining DRBs of the four DRBs).
Regarding claim 4, Itaba further teaches wherein the method is implemented at a RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) (MeNB 40, fig 8) configured to identify the subset of DRBs based on parameters sent from a Distributed Unit (DU) or a Centralized Unit (CU) of the BS (para 119: the MeNB 40 receives a DDDS message, which is a message notifying about a DL data communication status in the DU 72, through the CU 71 from the DU 72. The DU 72 may transmit the DDDS messages per user (per DRB) or per group. When any one of the aforementioned plurality of groups is included in the DDDS message, the MeNB 40 controls the DRB classified into the group included in the DDDS message).
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.
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.
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaba (US 20210377779) in view of Deng (US 20230370888)
Regarding claim 6, Itaba teaches the limitation of parent claim.
Itaba further teaches wherein the parameters comprise: a number of DRBs and for each of the DRBs or for the subset DRBs, the parameters comprise: information from DDDS for that DRB (para 119: the MeNB 40 receives a DDDS message, which is a message notifying about a DL data communication status in the DU 72, through the CU 71 from the DU 72, the DU 72 may transmit the DDDS messages per user (per DRB) or per group, when any one of the aforementioned plurality of groups is included in the DDDS message, the MeNB 40 controls the DRB classified into the group included in the DDDS message; thus, the message includes parameters including DRBs and information of group from the DDDS).
Itaba does not teach memory available for the DRBs. Deng is directed to a communication device, a method, and a program that are capable of reducing consumption of a communication band in a transmission path when the number of DRBs increases (para 8-11).
Deng further teaches the parameters comprise: total memory available for these DRBs (para 79-81: the measurement unit 31 may calculate, as a data rate for each DRB, a data rate from a data amount in a transmission buffer of the communication device 30 and a time required for the transmission, the group generation unit 32 classifies, based on a data rate for each DRB measured by the measurement unit 31, DRBs into one group or any of a plurality of groups). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine DDDS message transmission control as taught by Itaba with DRB buffer memory consideration for grouping in DDDS as taught by Deng for the benefit of reducing consumption of a communication band in a transmission path as taught by Deng in Para 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RINA C PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-2679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/RINA C PANCHOLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights