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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed June 16, 2026. Claim 10 has been amended; no claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending and are examined herein. The new ground of rejection set forth below as to claim 10 was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of that claim, so that finality is proper under MPEP § 706.07(a). THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 1, filed June 16, 2026, the Examiner withdraws previously issued rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claim 10 amended and recites a non-transitory computer readable medium containing the computer program, and the claim 10 no longer directed to software per se.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Though TS 38.323 discloses association of a PDCP entity with multiple RLC entities, TS 38.323 does not disclose that the wireless device (PDCP entity) is connected via three or more paths, to one or more cell groups explicitly” (Remarks, page 3), and that “the cited text from TS38.323 does not states any connectivity towards one or more cell groups” (Remarks, page 3), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 requires connection via three or more paths to “one or more cell groups”, so that a single cell group satisfies the recitation and a showing of connectivity toward a plurality of cell groups is not required. TS 38.323 expressly provides for the plural paths: each PDCP entity is associated with as many as eight RLC entities, and a PDCP entity configured for duplication is associated with N RLC entities per direction where N may be as large as four, as quoted in the rejection below (TS 38.323, pg. 8, §4.2.1; pg. 9, §4.2.1), each such RLC entity being a separate path over which the same radio bearer is carried, so that an association with three, four, six, or eight RLC entities is a connection via three or more paths.
TS 38.323 further supplies the cell group context Applicant says is absent, because it defines a split bearer as one whose radio protocols are located in both the MgNB and the SgNB and are used to draw on both MgNB and SgNB resources, and it places the routing among those paths in the transmitting PDCP entity (TS 38.323, pg. 7, §3.1; pg. 9, §4.2.2). The paths are therefore not free-floating RLC entities but paths toward the master and secondary nodes, which are the cell groups the claim recites. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regard to Applicant’s argument that “independent Claims 10 and 12 recite, inter alia, features similar to those recited above in independent Claim 1” and are therefore “also patentable for at least the same reasons discussed above regarding independent Claim 1” (Remarks, page 3), the argument is not persuasive as to claim 12 for the reasons just given, claim 12 being the apparatus counterpart of claim 1 and rejected on the same ground. As to claim 10, the argument does not reach the rejection now made. Claim 10 was amended to add the recitation “connect a wireless device, via three or more paths to one or more cell groups”, which was not present in claim 10 as previously presented, and the rejection of claim 10 set forth below is a new ground of rejection necessitated by that amendment rather than a maintenance of the rejection Applicant addressed.
As to Applicant’s argument that “as each of these claims depends upon base Claims 1 and 12 that are believed to be in condition for allowance, Applicant does not believe that it is necessary to argue the allowability of each dependent claim individually” (Remarks, page 9), Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Because claims 1 and 12 stand rejected for the reasons given above, the dependent claims are not allowable by virtue of their dependency.
For at least these reasons, the rejections of claims 1-9 and 12-20 are maintained and are restated below, and a new ground of rejection is entered against claim 10.
The new ground of rejection entered in this Office action is limited to claim 10 and was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. Claim 10 was amended to recite a non-transitory computer readable medium containing the computer program and to add the limitation “connect a wireless device, via three or more paths to one or more cell groups”, neither of which appeared in claim 10 as previously presented. The rejection of claim 10 below therefore relies on TS 38.323, pg. 7, §3.1, pg. 8, §4.2.1, pg. 9, §4.2.1, and pg. 23, §5.11.1, and on Jheng, col. 19, lines 4-8, none of which was cited against claim 10 in the prior Office action. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 stand rejected over the same references and the same passages relied on in the prior Office action, and their rejections are maintained. Because every new ground presented here was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, this action is properly made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: the claim as amended recites a non-transitory computor readable medium, which appears to be a misspelling of “computer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 38.323 V16.2.0, Release 16, “Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) specification” (ETSI TS 138 323 V16.2.0 (2020-11)) in view of Jheng (US 10,536,878 B2).
Regarding claim 1, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 discloses: A method performed by a radio node for handling paths for transmissions related to data packets in a wireless communications network, wherein the radio node is represented by any one out of: a wireless device and a network node, because TS 38.323 teaches a transmitting PDCP entity resident in a user equipment that carries the data of one radio bearer and, on submitting each PDCP PDU to the lower layer, directs that PDU among the RLC entities serving the bearer: (TS 38.323, pg. 9, §4.2.2 “Several PDCP entities may be defined for a UE. Each PDCP entity is carrying the data of one radio bearer.”; TS 38.323, pg. 14, §5.2.1 “When submitting a PDCP PDU to lower layer, the transmitting PDCP entity shall”).
Furthermore, TS 38.323 discloses: wherein the wireless device is connected via three or more paths to one or more cell groups, because TS 38.323 teaches that a single PDCP entity is associated with as many as eight RLC entities, and that a radio bearer configured for duplication is associated with N RLC entities per direction where N reaches four, each such RLC entity carrying the same bearer over its own path: (TS 38.323, pg. 8, §4.2.1 “Each PDCP entity is associated with one, two, three, four, six, or eight RLC entities depending on the RB characteristic”; TS 38.323, pg. 9, §4.2.1 “For RBs configured with PDCP duplication, each PDCP entity is associated with N UM RLC entities (for same direction), 2 × N UM RLC entities (N for each direction), or N AM RLC entities, where 2 <= N <= 4”).
Moreover, TS 38.323 discloses: and wherein the wireless device is configured with a split radio bearer comprising the three or more paths between the wireless device and the one or more cell groups, because TS 38.323 teaches a split bearer whose radio protocols sit in both the master and the secondary node, associates that split bearer with plural RLC entities, and locates the routing among them in the transmitting PDCP entity: (TS 38.323, pg. 7, §3.1 “a bearer whose radio protocols are located in both the MgNB and the SgNB to use both MgNB and SgNB resources”; TS 38.323, pg. 8, §4.2.1 “For split bearers, each PDCP entity is associated with two UM RLC entities (for same direction), four UM RLC entities (two for each direction), or two AM RLC entities”; TS 38.323, pg. 9, §4.2.2 “For split bearers and DAPS bearers, routing is performed in the transmitting PDCP entity.”).
With respect to claim 1, although TS 38.323 teaches submitting duplicated PDCP Data PDUs to the RLC entities activated for duplication and, when duplication is deactivated, routing each PDCP PDU to the primary or the split secondary RLC entity according to a pending data volume threshold: (TS 38.323, pg. 14, §5.2.1; pg. 23, §5.11.1), TS 38.323 does not explicitly disclose obtaining a characteristic of each individual path and deciding, from that characteristic, whether replicas are to be transmitted and which of the three or more paths are to carry them.
However, TS 38.323 in view of Jheng discloses the method comprising: obtaining characteristics of the respective path out of the three or more paths, and because Jheng teaches that the user equipment acquires, for the paths it is configured with, one or more measurements of the channel conditions on those paths (Jheng, col. 20, lines 3-6, “the UE obtains one or more measurements of channel conditions (e.g., one or more measurements of at least one of a RSRP measurement, RSRQ measurement, RLM measurement and a power headroom measurement)”).
Furthermore, Jheng discloses based on the obtained characteristics of the respective path, establishing whether to transmit replicas of the data packets, and which one or more paths out of the three or more paths associated to the split radio bearer that shall be used for any one out of: transmitting the data packets on, or transmitting replicas of the data packets on because Jheng teaches that those measurements are tested against activation thresholds to settle whether duplication runs, and that the outcome of that test governs whether one channel alone carries the packets or a second channel carries a replica of them (Jheng, col. 20, lines 7-10, “the UE determines whether the one or more measurements meet activation threshold conditions (e.g., trigger entry threshold 808). At operation 1206, the UE activates the radio bearer to perform duplication”; Jheng, col. 19, lines 1-3, “on the first logical channel 616a and communicates a duplicated first packet (e.g., a duplicated PDCP PDU) on the second logical channel 616b”; Jheng, col. 19, lines 4-8, “in response to a determination not to activate the radio bearer to perform duplication (e.g. based on the received radio bearer configuration), the UE communicates all packets only on one of the first 616a and second 616b logical channels”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PDCP duplication framework of TS 38.323 so that the transmitting entity obtains a channel condition measurement for each associated path and settles from those measurements whether duplication is activated and which of the associated RLC entities are to carry the packet, as taught by Jheng.
Doing so would have predictably allowed the wireless device to track changing radio conditions, committing the additional path only while reliability requires it and releasing that path once it does not, which conserves radio resources without surrendering the reliability that duplication is provided to obtain.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 in view of Jheng discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the radio node is a wireless device, the method further comprising: receiving a configuration from a network node, that configures the wireless device to perform said establishing, as Jheng further discloses that the base station sends the user equipment a reconfiguration message carrying the duplication activation and deactivation indicator together with the PDCP and logical channel associations, and that the user equipment sets up its duplication architecture from that message (Jheng, col. 10, lines 53-58, “the base station 504 may send an RRC connection reconfiguration message 508, (which may include duplication activation/deactivation indicator, session management configuration and PDCP and logical channel associations), to the UE 502 to set up 506 the duplication architecture”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine TS 38.323 and Jheng is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 in view of Jheng discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration further comprises any one or more out of: which of the paths to any of the respective one or more cell groups that are associated to the split radio bearer, as Jheng further discloses that the reconfiguration message is what tells the user equipment which carrier each of the split bearer’s channels is to occupy (Jheng, col. 12, lines 25-29, “based on the RRC connection reconfiguration message 508, the UE 502 may set up a split bearer 680 having a first logical channel 616a on a first component carrier 682 and a second logical channel 616b on a second component carrier 684”). TS 38.323 discloses wherein the paths comprise at least a first path, a second path, and a third path, and which of the respective paths that are identified as a primary path, a secondary path, and a tertiary path, as TS 38.323 further discloses that where a PDCP entity is associated with more than two RLC entities the split secondary RLC entity is designated by upper layers, so that the several paths are distinguished from one another by configuration (TS 38.323, pg. 7, §3.1, “If the PDCP entity is associated with more than two RLC entities, the split secondary RLC entity is configured by upper layers.”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine TS 38.323 and Jheng is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 in view of Jheng discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein: the obtaining of the characteristics of paths related to the split radio bearer comprises measuring the signal quality of the paths comprising at least a first path, a second path, and a third path, to the respective one or more cell groups, and wherein said establishing based on the obtained characteristics of the respective path, comprises: determining whether to transmit replicas of the data packets, and which one or more paths that shall be used for transmitting the data packets on, or transmitting replicas of the data packets on, based on whether the measured signal quality of the respective path is fulfilling a criterion associated to each of the respective path, as Jheng further discloses that the measurements obtained are signal quality measurements of the channel, and that they are tested against an entry threshold and an exit threshold whose satisfaction settles whether duplication is activated or deactivated (Jheng, col. 20, lines 3-6, “the UE obtains one or more measurements of channel conditions (e.g., one or more measurements of at least one of a RSRP measurement, RSRQ measurement, RLM measurement and a power headroom measurement)”; Jheng, col. 20, lines 17-21, “the UE determines whether the one or more measurements meet deactivation threshold conditions (e.g., exit threshold 810), in response to a determination that the one or more measurements do not meet activation threshold conditions”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine TS 38.323 and Jheng is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 in view of Jheng discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration further comprises the obtaining of said characteristics of paths, as Jheng further discloses that the configuration the base station sends is itself what sets the channel signal condition thresholds and starts the user equipment monitoring those conditions, so that the obtaining of the path characteristics is part of what is configured (Jheng, col. 18, lines 19-25, “the base station 504 may configure one or more channel signal condition thresholds via SIB messages or dedicated RRC messages, such as an RRC reconfiguration message (e.g., an RRC connection reconfiguration message), which may include threshold information and radio bearer identifier(s) information”; Jheng, col. 18, lines 25-27, “Upon receiving the threshold information, the UE 502 starts monitoring corresponding channel signal quality conditions.”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine TS 38.323 and Jheng is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the establishing of whether to transmit replicas of the data packets, and which one or more paths that shall be used for transmitting the data packets on, or transmitting replicas of the data packets on, based on the obtained characteristics of the respective path, is further based on an amount of data in a data buffer of the radio node, as TS 38.323 further discloses that the transmitting PDCP entity submits the PDU to the primary or the split secondary RLC entity only once the data volume pending for initial transmission in those entities reaches a configured threshold, which conditions the choice of path on the amount of data held in the buffer (TS 38.323, pg. 14, §5.2.1, “if the total amount of PDCP data volume and RLC data volume pending for initial transmission (as specified in TS 38.322 [5]) in the primary RLC entity and the split secondary RLC entity is equal to or larger than ul-DataSplitThreshold”; TS 38.323, pg. 14, §5.2.1, “submit the PDCP PDU to either the primary RLC entity or the split secondary RLC entity”).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the paths comprise at least a first path, a second path, and a third path, as TS 38.323 further discloses a duplication configuration reaching four RLC entities per direction (TS 38.323, pg. 9, §4.2.1, “For RBs configured with PDCP duplication, each PDCP entity is associated with N UM RLC entities (for same direction), 2 × N UM RLC entities (N for each direction), or N AM RLC entities, where 2 <= N <= 4”).
Further, TS 38.323 in view of Jheng discloses and wherein said establishing comprises: determining whether: a first path shall be used for transmitting the data packets on, and neither of a second path and a third path shall be used for transmitting replicas of the data packets on, or the second path and the third path shall be used for transmitting replicas of the data packets on, and the first path shall not be used for transmitting the data packets on, as Jheng further discloses that the determination made from the measurements is a determination between carrying all packets on a single channel and carrying a replica on a further channel, which applied to three associated paths is the recited determination between using the first path alone and using the second and third paths for the replicas (Jheng, col. 19, lines 4-8, “in response to a determination not to activate the radio bearer to perform duplication (e.g. based on the received radio bearer configuration), the UE communicates all packets only on one of the first 616a and second 616b logical channels”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine TS 38.323 and Jheng is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the paths comprise at least a first path, a second path, and a third path, and wherein said establishing comprises: determining to send replicas of the data packets and that the first path shall be used for transmitting one replica of data packets on and determining that any one out of: the second path shall be used for transmitting another replica of the data packets on, or the third path shall be used for transmitting another replica of the data packets on, as TS 38.323 further discloses that duplication may be activated for particular ones of the associated RLC entities and that the duplicated PDU is submitted to those activated entities, so that which of three associated paths carries a replica follows from which entities are activated (TS 38.323, pg. 23, §5.11.1, “if the activation of PDCP duplication is indicated for at least one associated RLC entities”; TS 38.323, pg. 14, §5.2.1, “duplicate the PDCP Data PDU and submit the PDCP Data PDU to the associated RLC entities activated for PDCP duplication”).
Regarding claim 9, (Previously Presented) TS 38.323 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein any one or more out of: the one or more cell groups comprises a Master Cell Group (MCG), a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) and one or more third cell group, and the third cell group comprises any one out of: an SCG2 or a Tertiary Cell Group (TCG), as TS 38.323 further discloses a split bearer whose radio protocols are located in both the master node and the secondary node, and a duplication configuration in which one PDCP entity is associated with as many as four RLC entities per direction (TS 38.323, pg. 7, §3.1, “a bearer whose radio protocols are located in both the MgNB and the SgNB to use both MgNB and SgNB resources”; TS 38.323, pg. 9, §4.2.1, “For RBs configured with PDCP duplication, each PDCP entity is associated with N UM RLC entities (for same direction), 2 × N UM RLC entities (N for each direction), or N AM RLC entities, where 2 <= N <= 4”).
Accordingly, adding a third cell group beside the Master Cell Group and the Secondary Cell Group, whether that third group is designated an SCG2 or a Tertiary Cell Group, is a mere duplication of the cell group TS 38.323 already provides, each added cell group performing the same function of supplying radio resources for bearer routing and PDCP duplication, and it yields no more than the predictable result of extending multi-connectivity to one further node. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Going from two cell groups to three is likewise a change in degree rather than in kind, because the PDCP architecture of TS 38.323 already carries as many as eight RLC entities on one PDCP entity and so already holds the protocol infrastructure a bearer spanning more than two cell groups would need. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Doing so would have predictably increased throughput, reliability, and path diversity, which are recognized design objectives in 5G NR systems, with a reasonable expectation of success given the multi-RLC-entity support already in place.
Regarding claim 10, (Currently Amended) TS 38.323 discloses: A non-transitory computor readable medium containing a computer program comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: connect a wireless device, via three or more paths to one or more cell groups, because TS 38.323 teaches that a single PDCP entity is associated with as many as eight RLC entities, that a radio bearer configured for duplication is associated with N RLC entities per direction where N reaches four, and that a bearer so configured has its radio protocols located in both the master and the secondary node: (TS 38.323, pg. 8, §4.2.1 “Each PDCP entity is associated with one, two, three, four, six, or eight RLC entities depending on the RB characteristic”; TS 38.323, pg. 9, §4.2.1 “For RBs configured with PDCP duplication, each PDCP entity is associated with N UM RLC entities (for same direction), 2 × N UM RLC entities (N for each direction), or N AM RLC entities, where 2 <= N <= 4”; TS 38.323, pg. 7, §3.1 “a bearer whose radio protocols are located in both the MgNB and the SgNB to use both MgNB and SgNB resources”).
Although TS 38.323 teaches the transmit, routing, and duplication procedures a PDCP entity performs when it submits a PDU to the lower layer: (TS 38.323, pg. 14, §5.2.1; pg. 23, §5.11.1), TS 38.323 does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium holding instructions that cause a processor to obtain a characteristic of each path and settle from it whether replicas are sent and which paths carry them.
Conversely, TS 38.323 in view of Jheng discloses obtain characteristics of the respective path out of the three or more paths, and because Jheng teaches that the described functions are held as instructions on a computer readable medium, identifies that medium as storage media of the random access, read only, optical, and magnetic kinds, all of which are non-transitory, and teaches that the device executing those instructions acquires, for the paths it is configured with, one or more measurements of the channel conditions on those paths (Jheng, col. 4, lines 23-26, “If implemented in software, the functions may be stored on or encoded as one or more instructions or code on a computer-readable medium. Computer-readable media includes computer storage media.”; Jheng, col. 4, lines 29-33, “such computer-readable media can comprise a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage, other magnetic storage devices”; Jheng, col. 20, lines 3-6, “the UE obtains one or more measurements of channel conditions (e.g., one or more measurements of at least one of a RSRP measurement, RSRQ measurement, RLM measurement and a power headroom measurement)”).
Furthermore, Jheng discloses based on the obtained characteristics of the respective path, establish whether to transmit replicas of the data packets, and which one or more paths out of the three or more paths associated to the split radio bearer that shall be used for any one out of: transmit the data packets on, or transmit replicas of the data packets on because Jheng teaches an instruction set held in a memory device that causes the processor to settle whether duplication is activated and, on that footing, whether one channel alone carries the packets or a second channel carries a replica of them (Jheng, col. 2, lines 44-48, “an apparatus for a wireless communication includes a processor and a memory device coupled to the processor. The memory device contains a set of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive a radio bearer configuration”; Jheng, col. 20, lines 7-10, “the UE determines whether the one or more measurements meet activation threshold conditions (e.g., trigger entry threshold 808). At operation 1206, the UE activates the radio bearer to perform duplication”; Jheng, col. 19, lines 4-8, “in response to a determination not to activate the radio bearer to perform duplication (e.g. based on the received radio bearer configuration), the UE communicates all packets only on one of the first 616a and second 616b logical channels”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the PDCP transmit and duplication procedures of TS 38.323 as instructions held on a non-transitory computer readable medium and to have those instructions obtain a channel condition measurement for each associated path and settle from it whether duplication is activated and which associated paths carry the packet, as taught by Jheng.
Doing so would have predictably allowed the same duplication control to be distributed, installed, and updated as software on ordinary storage media while still tracking changing radio conditions, which is the customary way protocol procedures are realized in a wireless device.
Regarding claim 12, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: A radio node configured to handle paths for transmissions related to Uplink (UL) data packets in a wireless communications network, wherein the radio node is adapted to be any one out of: a wireless device and a network node, wherein the wireless device is connectable to via three or more paths to one or more cell groups, and wherein the wireless device is adapted to be configured with a split radio bearer comprising the three or more paths between the wireless device and the one or more cell groups, the radio node further configured to: obtain characteristics of the respective path out of the three or more paths, and based on the obtained characteristics of the respective path, establish whether to transmit replicas of the data packets, and which one or more paths out of the three or more paths associated to the split radio bearer that shall be used for any one out of: transmitting the data packets on, or transmitting replicas of the data packets on. Claim 12 is analogous to claim 1 and therefore Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason set forth.
Regarding claim 13, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The radio node according to claim 12, further configured to: receive a configuration from a network node, the configuration is adapted to configure the wireless device to perform said establishing. Claim 13 is analogous to claim 2 and therefore Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth.
Regarding claim 14, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The radio node according to claim 12, wherein the configuration further comprises any one or more out of: which of the paths to any of the respective one or more cell groups, that are associated to the split radio bearer, wherein the paths are adapted to comprise at least a first path, a second path, and a third path, and which of the respective paths that are identified as a primary path, a secondary path, and a tertiary path. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 3 and therefore Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth.
Regarding claim 15, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The radio node according to claim 12, further configured to: obtain the characteristics of paths related to the split radio bearer by measuring the signal quality of the paths, adapted to comprise at least a first path, a second path, and a third path, to the respective MCG, SCG, and the third cell group, and establish, based on the obtained characteristics of the respective path, by determining whether to transmit replicas of the data packets, and which one or more paths that shall be used for transmitting the data packets on, or transmitting replicas of the data packets on, based on whether the measured signal quality of the respective path is fulfilling a criterion associated to each of the respective path. Claim 15 is analogous to claim 4 and therefore Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth, the recited Master Cell Group, Secondary Cell Group, and third cell group being addressed in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 16, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The radio node according to claim 12, the configuration further is adapted to comprise the obtaining of said characteristics of paths. Claim 16 is analogous to claim 5 and therefore Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth.
Regarding claim 17, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The radio node according to claim 12, further configured to establish whether to transmit replicas of the data packets, and which one or more paths that shall be used for transmitting the data packets on, or transmitting replicas of the data packets on, based on the obtained characteristics of the respective path, further based on an amount of data in a data buffer of the radio node. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 6 and therefore Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth.
Regarding claim 18, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The radio node according to claim 12, wherein the paths are adapted to comprise at least a first path, a second path, and a third path, and wherein the radio node further is configured to perform said establishing by determining whether: a first path shall be used for transmitting the data packets on, and neither of a second path and a third path shall be used for transmitting replicas of the data packets on, or the second path and the third path shall be used for transmitting replicas of the data packets on, and the first path shall not be used for transmitting the data packets on. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 7 and therefore Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason set forth.
Regarding claim 19, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The radio node according to claim 12, wherein the paths are adapted to comprise at least a first path, a second path, and a third path, and wherein the wireless device further is configured to perform said establishing by: determining to send replicas of the data packets and that the first path shall be used for transmitting one replica of data packets on and determining that any one out of: the second path shall be used for transmitting another replica of the data packets on, or the third path shall be used for transmitting another replica of the data packets on. Claim 19 is analogous to claim 8 and therefore Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth.
Regarding claim 20, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The radio node according to claim 12, wherein any one or more out of: the one or more cell groups are adapted to comprise a Master Cell Group (MCG) a Secondary Cell Group (SCG), and one or more third cell group, and wherein the third cell group is adapted to comprise any one out of: an SCG2 or a Tertiary Cell Group (TCG). Claim 20 is analogous to claim 9 and therefore Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth.
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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights