DETAILED ACTION
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 the submission filed 2026-03-24 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 10, 30-32 are pending for consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the Reply is acknowledged. The traversal is not found persuasive because:
(1) The Reply provided a terse boiler plate argument without specifically pointing out the deficiencies in the Examiner’s restriction:
PNG
media_image1.png
150
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2) The Reply’s argument above is moot, as the restriction was made via REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION via 37 CFR 1.475(a). There is no search/examination requirement under for 37 CFR 1.475(a). The Reply is arguing that the Examiner has no established a requirement that is not required for unity of invention analysis.
See MPEP 823 Unity of Invention Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). See MPEP Chapter 1800, in particular MPEP § 1850, § 1875, and § 1893.03(d), for a detailed discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 10, 31
optionally
The claim(s) recites phrases that are directed to indefinite language (e.g., “for example,” “or the like,” “such as,” or “maybe”) because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISLAM_999 (US20190349999) in view of HAMPEL_616 (US20190289616)
Claim(s) 10
ISLAM_999 teaches
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: <FIG(s). 1, 10-17>.
receiving a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message including a time raster indicating eligible time instants for handover messaging during a network communication; UE receive an indication of the available transmission opportunities from a base station (e.g., in a handover message). The available transmission resources may be a fixed set of slots in each frame, subframe, or the like. <para. 0170-0174>.
performing random access channel (RACH) procedure at one or more eligible time instants indicated in the time raster; and UE is configured to schedule transmission of connection requests only during consecutive available transmission opportunities, including the connection request may be a RACH request included in a random access preamble transmission such as a RACH MSG <para. 0170-0174>.
optionally sending a RRC reconfiguration complete message at one or more eligible time instants indicated in the time raster. This feature includes language that causes corresponding limitations to be suggested or optional (i.e., does not require steps to be performed and/or does not further limit a structure/configuration). Consequently, the claim does not necessarily require the corresponding limitation to be carried out, or be configured to be carried out (i.e., does not limit the scope of a claim), and is therefore not given any patentable weight. The Examiner recommends amending the claim(s) such that the limitation(s) explicitly occurs.
ISLAM_999 does not explicitly teach
wherein the eligible time instants are based on a radio access network (RAN) traffic and/or a core network (CN);
However in a similar endeavor, HAMPEL_616 teaches
wherein the eligible time instants are based on a radio access network (RAN) traffic and/or a core network (CN); Traffic is scheduled in accordance with time intervals based on types of traffic (e.g., low or high priority) communicated in the network. <FIG(s). 10, 11, 13; para. 0047, 0087, 0112, 0142-0153>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ISLAM_999 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by HAMPEL_616. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved methods, systems, devices, or apparatuses that support time-sensitive networking (TSN) frame pre-emption across a cellular interface. <para. 0005>.
Claim(s) 30
ISLAM_999 does not explicitly teach
wherein the network communication comprises at least one of the following: a periodic communication,
However in a similar endeavor, HAMPEL_616 teaches
wherein the network communication comprises at least one of the following: a periodic communication, Schedule traffic can be periodic. <para. 0005, 0127-0128>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ISLAM_999 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by HAMPEL_616. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved methods, systems, devices, or apparatuses that support time-sensitive networking (TSN) frame pre-emption across a cellular interface. <para. 0005>.
Claim(s) 31
ISLAM_999 teaches
wherein the time raster is at least one of the following: expressed in at least one of the following forms: a specific time information, The available transmission resources may be a fixed set of slots in each frame, subframe, or the like. <para. 0170-0174>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISLAM_999 (US20190349999) in view of HAMPEL_616 (US20190289616), and further view of DUDDA_646 (US20230269646)
Claim(s) 32
ISLAM_999 does not explicitly teach
wherein the HO comprises a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) HO.
However in a similar endeavor, DUDDA_646 teaches
wherein the HO comprises a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) HO. DAPS handover <FIG(s). 5; para. 0056-0060, 0102>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ISLAM_999 and HAMPEL_616 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by DUDDA_646. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the wireless device to transition from PDCP packet duplication with the source base station to DAPS and to transition back to PDCP packet duplication with the target base station. <para. 0005>.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights