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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application (filed 06/17/2024) does not claim priorities from any domestic application or to any foreign application.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20180324642 A1, hereinafter Yu), in view of VEIJALAINEN et al. (US 20230043492 A1, hereinafter VEIJALAINEN).
Regarding claim 1,
Yu teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising (Yu, in general, see both fig. 4 and fig. 5 in view of either or both of fig. 6A and 6B, along with their respective paragraphs, note that steps of fig. 4 are mostly in view of a UE, and steps of fig. 5 are mostly in view of a BS):
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (Yu, see at least fig. 14, e.g. various components):
receive a message indicating one or more packet duplication parameters for one or more packets associated with a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer of a protocol stack of the UE (Yu, see at least para. 167-168, for example step 530, “...The base station 505 may transmit indication(s) 530 to the UE 510 indicating one or more various link identifiers, link parameters, RLC entity identifiers, RLC entity parameters, state variables, the default RLC entity, or a combination... The indication 530 may indicate that the PDCP entity of the UE 510 should operate in a duplication mode and the status of the duplication of packets...”, note that steps 545 and/or 555 could also apply);
select, using a packet duplication selection procedure and based at least in part on the one or more packet duplication parameters, one or more radio link control legs associated with the PDCP layer of the protocol stack for transmission of a first packet of the one or more packets (Yu, see at least para. 160-161, “...At block 435, the transmitting device 405 may forward each packet in the set of copied packets to different RLC entities. As such, each packet in the set of copied packets may be communicated to the receiving device 410 using a different logical channel or a different leg...”),
wherein the one or more radio link control legs are selected from a plurality of radio link control legs for transmission of one or more instances of the first packet (Yu, see at least para. 160-161, note that “...In some examples, the number of duplicate packets created may be based on the number of RLC entities that are supported in the duplication mode. In some examples, the PDCP entity of the transmitting device 405 may support a default RLC entity and one additional RLC entity, and therefore, the set of copied packets may include two packets: the original packet and one duplicate packet...”);
and transmit the first packet using the selected one or more radio link control legs (Yu, see at least para. 162, “...The transmitting device 405 may transmit both the original packet 440 and the one or more duplicate packet(s) 445 to the receiving device 410...”).
Yu does not specifically teach [one or more instances of the first packet] based at least in part on one or more key performance indicators that the UE is configured to satisfy.
VEIJALAINEN teaches [one or more instances of the first packet] based at least in part on one or more key performance indicators that the UE is configured to satisfy (VEIJALAINEN, in general, see fig. 5B and its paragraphs 58-65, in particular, see at least para. 65 in view of para. 31, “...the receiving 550 may include receiving a configuration for PDCP PDU-EP measurement and reporting...”, note that para. 31 discloses “...For example, certain embodiments provide a new feedback mechanism for a transmitter to obtain error probability estimate of protocol data unit (PDU) at any radio layer. This new key performance indicator (KPI) may be referred to as PDU error probability (PDU-EP)...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate VEIJALAINEN into Yu to provide several technological improvements, enhancements, and/or advantages over existing technological processes and constitute an improvement at least to the technological field of wireless network control and management (see para. 100).
Regarding claim 2, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches the one or more packet duplication parameters include an identification of the plurality of radio link control legs and an indication that the packet duplication selection procedure is to be used at the UE to select the one or more radio link control legs based at least in part on one or more predicted values associated with the one or more packet duplication parameters. (Yu, see at least para. 167 along with para. 160, for example, step 530 along with step 430, “...The base station 505 may transmit indication(s) 530 to the UE 510 indicating one or more various link identifiers, link parameters, RLC entity identifiers, RLC entity parameters, state variables, the default RLC entity, or a combination...”, note that for one non-limiting example “...In some examples, the PDCP entity of the transmitting device 405 may support a default RLC entity and one additional RLC entity, and therefore, the set of copied packets may include two packets: the original packet and one duplicate packet....”)
Regarding claim 3, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches the one or more packet duplication parameters include one or more performance metrics related to one or more of
a predicted error rate associated with the first packet (Yu, for one non-limiting example, see at least claims 1-3, “...wherein the dynamic duplication parameter includes, a packet loss rate associated with the first RLC entity, a packet loss rate associated with the second RLC entity...”),
a predicted latency associated with the first packet,
an amount of usage of the one or more radio link control legs associated with a duplicated instance of the first packet, or
a limit on consecutive errors on the one or more radio link control legs.
Regarding claim 4, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu does not specifically teach transmit a duplication statistics report that includes one or more usage parameters associated with duplicated packets transmitted from the UE and utilization of the one or more radio link control legs used for transmission of the duplicated packets.
VEIJALAINEN teaches transmit a duplication statistics report that includes one or more usage parameters associated with duplicated packets transmitted from the UE and utilization of the one or more radio link control legs used for transmission of the duplicated packets. (VEIJALAINEN, see at least para. 39, “...In certain embodiments, the feedback reporting may include one or more of PDU-EP statistics and/or additional information associated with the PDU-EP statistics. For example, PDU-EP statistics may include a single PDU-EP value, statistical value of several PDU-EPs (e.g., mean, percentile, and/or standard), and/or an event indicating that PDU-EP is below or above threshold. According to some examples, the additional information associated with the PDU-EP statistics may include an identifier (ID) of the PDU, such as PDCP sequence number (SN), a channel (e.g., RLC-leg, QoS flow, radio bearer), number of re-transmissions, and/or time difference between reception of duplicate and primary PDCP-PDUs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate VEIJALAINEN into Yu to provide several technological improvements, enhancements, and/or advantages over existing technological processes and constitute an improvement at least to the technological field of wireless network control and management (see para. 100).
Regarding claim 5, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches the message further indicates whether packet duplication is enabled or disabled at the UE. (Yu, see at least para. 168 and/or 178, for one example, “...In some examples, the indication 530 may indicate a default duplication activation status...”; for another example, “...The condition indication 555 may include an indication of the parameters to be used to activate or deactivate the duplication of packets...”)
Regarding claim 6, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches wherein the one or more radio link control legs include a primary radio link control leg and one or more secondary radio link control legs, and wherein a first copies of the first packet is transmitted on the primary radio link control leg and a second copies of the first packet is transmitted on a first radio link control leg that is selected from the one or more secondary radio link control legs based at least in part on the packet duplication selection procedure that indicates whether to duplicate the first packet, a copies of instances of the first packet that are to be transmitted, and which of the one or more secondary radio link control legs to use for duplicate copies of the first packet. (Yu, see at least para. 160-162, e.g. steps 440-445 in view of steps 430-435, note that “...The PDCP entity of the transmitting device 405 may be configured to generate a fixed number of duplicate packets (e.g., one, two three, four, five, six, etc.). The original packet and the one or more duplicate packets together may be referred to as a set of copied packets. In some examples, the number of duplicate packets created may be based on the number of RLC entities that are supported in the duplication mode...”, however also note that “...In some examples, the PDCP entity of the transmitting device 405 may support a default RLC entity and one additional RLC entity, and therefore, the set of copied packets may include two packets: the original packet and one duplicate packet...”)
Yu does not specifically teach a number of instances of the first packet.
VEIJALAINEN teaches a number of instances of the first packet. (VEIJALAINEN, see at least para. 45 and fig. 3, “...FIG. 3 illustrates an example of PDCP duplication, where PDCP-PDU can be duplicated via a second leg (leg2) that can be another component carrier (CC) and/or dual connectivity (DC)...”, note that one data packet in two instances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate VEIJALAINEN into Yu to provide several technological improvements, enhancements, and/or advantages over existing technological processes and constitute an improvement at least to the technological field of wireless network control and management (see para. 100).
Regarding claim 7, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches the packet duplication selection procedure outputs an indication of whether packet duplication of the one or more packets is enabled and an indication of the selected one or more radio link control legs, and wherein the indication of whether packet duplication of the one or more packets is enabled and the indication of the selected one or more radio link control legs are applied to all packets of the one or more packets or is applied on a per-packet basis for each of the one or more packets. (Yu, see at least para. 166-168, for one non-limiting example, “...The base station 505 may transmit indication(s) 530 to the UE 510 indicating one or more various link identifiers, link parameters, RLC entity identifiers, RLC entity parameters, state variables, the default RLC entity, or a combination... In some examples, the indication 530 may indicate a default duplication activation status. For example, the base station 505 may indicate that the UE should duplicate packets as a default status. In other examples, the base station 505 may indicate that the UE should not duplicate packets as a default status...”, note that para. 166 discloses “...the base station 505 may determine which RLC entity is the default RLC entity. When the duplication of packets is deactivated, the PDCP entity of a transmitting device may still forward packets to the default RLC entity. In effect, the default RLC entity is the RLC entity that remains active even when packets are not duplicated...”)
Regarding claim 8, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu does not specifically teach provide, to a prediction model associated with the packet duplication selection procedure, one or more of a channel condition associated with a radio channel used for transmission of the one or more packets, a reliability target associated with the one or more packets, a latency target associated with the one or more packets, a state associated with traffic flow associated with the one or more packets, a state associated with the UE, or a usage limit for at least one of the plurality of radio link control legs.
VEIJALAINEN teaches provide, to a prediction model associated with the packet duplication selection procedure, one or more of
a channel condition associated with a radio channel used for transmission of the one or more packets,
a reliability target associated with the one or more packets,
a latency target associated with the one or more packets,
a state associated with traffic flow associated with the one or more packets (VEIJALAINEN, for one non-limiting example, see at least para. 46-47 along with para. 39, “...In one example, a UE may be configured to feedback PDCP PDU-EP of both legs. The feedback may be associated with corresponding SN that allows the network to calculate arbitrary label for each duplication decision. This way, the ML algorithm can classify and label actions, even though all PDUs would have been received successfully, helping to steer the algorithm to meet the URLLC reliability goals...”),
a state associated with the UE, or
a usage limit for at least one of the plurality of radio link control legs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate VEIJALAINEN into Yu to provide several technological improvements, enhancements, and/or advantages over existing technological processes and constitute an improvement at least to the technological field of wireless network control and management (see para. 100).
Regarding claim 9, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches wherein the one or more packet duplication parameters include one or more of a latency target associated with the one or more packets, a reliability target associated with the one or more packets, or a throughput target associated with the one or more packets. (Yu, see at least para. 184-185, “...At
block 620, the base station 605 may determine that the activation parameter satisfies an activation threshold. For example, if a measured packet loss rate associated with the communication link exceeds the activation threshold, the base station 605 may activate the duplication of packets. The base station 605 may activate the duplication of packets to improve the likelihood (e.g., reliability) that the receiving device receives at least one packet of a set of copied packets... The base station 605 may transmit an activation message 625 to the UE 610 based on determining the activation parameter satisfies the threshold...”)
Regarding claim 10, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches transmit an indication of the selected one or more radio link control legs in one or more of a PDCP header provided with the first packet, a control packet associated with the first packet, or a duplication medium access control (MAC) control element. (Yu, see at least para. 179 along with para. 194-195, “...The base station 505 and the UE 510 may exchange duplication control signals 560 while a communication link exists between the two devices. Such duplication control signals 560 may be used to activate or deactivate duplication modes, duplication of packets, or a combination. The duplication control signals 560 may be used to maintain the duplication bearer. The duplication control signals 560 may be used to adjust the duplication bearer...”, note that para. 195 discloses “...the activation message 670 may be delivered by a PDCP control PDU. In some examples, the activation message
670 may be delivered by a MAC CE. In some examples, the activation message 670 may be delivered by a RRC message...”)
Regarding claim 11, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu does not specifically teach transmit a PDCP duplication report that includes one or more of a log of radio link control legs used for transmission of the one or more packets, a log of failed packet transmissions, usage information for each of the one or more radio link control legs, an indication of a quantity of packets transmitted using two or more different duplication factors, an indication of one or more parameters that prompted transmission of at least two instances for at least one of the one or more packets, or performance statistics associated with one or more performance metrics.
VEIJALAINEN teaches transmit a PDCP duplication report that includes one or more of
a log of radio link control legs used for transmission of the one or more packets (VEIJALAINEN, for one non-limiting example, see at least para. 46-47 along with para. 39, “...In one example, a UE may be configured to feedback PDCP PDU-EP of both legs. The feedback may be associated with corresponding SN that allows the network to calculate arbitrary label for each duplication decision. This way, the ML algorithm can classify and label actions, even though all PDUs would have been received successfully, helping to steer the algorithm to meet the URLLC reliability goals...”),
a log of failed packet transmissions,
usage information for each of the one or more radio link control legs,
an indication of a quantity of packets transmitted using two or more different duplication factors,
an indication of one or more parameters that prompted transmission of at least two instances for at least one of the one or more packets, or
performance statistics associated with one or more performance metrics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate VEIJALAINEN into Yu to provide several technological improvements, enhancements, and/or advantages over existing technological processes and constitute an improvement at least to the technological field of wireless network control and management (see para. 100).
Regarding claim 12, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches transmit a capability message that provides an indication of a capability of the UE to perform the packet duplication selection procedure. (Yu, see at least para. 164, “...At block 515, the base station 505 and the UE 510 may exchange indications of the capabilities of the respective devices. For example, the base station 505 and the UE 510 may indicate whether the base station 505 and the UE 510 are capable of duplicating packets...”)
Regarding claim 13, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches transmit receive a radio resource control configuration message that includes one or more
key performance indicators (KPIs),
performance targets (Yu, for one non-limiting example, see at least para. 184-185 and 187, “...For example, if a measured packet loss rate associated with the communication link exceeds the activation threshold, the base station 605 may activate the duplication of packets. The base station 605 may activate the duplication of packets to improve the likelihood (e.g., reliability) that the receiving device receives at least one packet of a set of copied packets...”, note that para. 187 discloses “...the activation message 625 may be delivered by a RRC message...”),
a link failure threshold parameter associated with the one or more radio link control legs,
a usage threshold parameter associated with the one or more radio link control legs, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 13.
Yu further teaches wherein the radio resource control configuration message further indicates
one or more of whether to enable or disable usage of the packet duplication selection procedure (Yu, for one non-limiting example, see at least para. 186. “...In a static configuration, the activation message 625 may indicate that a PDCP entity of the UE 610 should enter a duplication mode, and therefore begin duplicating packets. In a dynamic configuration, the activation message 625 may indicate that the PDCP entity of the UE 610 (which may already be operating in a duplication mode) should begin duplicating packets that are transmitted to the base station 605...”),
one or more quality of service (QoS) flows on which to enable or disable usage of the packet duplication selection procedure,
a loss target over all radio link control legs,
a quantity of consecutive errors associated with the one or more radio link control legs,
a latency limit across the one or more radio link control legs,
or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches to cause the UE to: initiate a packet duplication fallback procedure based at least in part on a performance metric target associated with the packet duplication selection procedure being unmet,
wherein the packet duplication fallback procedure includes one or more of
performing packet duplication according to a fallback packet duplication state,
transmitting a performance metric violation report as part of performance reporting, or
discontinuing use of the packet duplication selection procedure for a radio bearer or packet flow associated with the one or more packets (Yu, for one non-limiting example, see at least para. 251-253 of fig. 9, “...In other examples, the receiving device
910 may not transmit a NACK 965. In such situations, the deactivation timer may be used by the transmitting device 905 to determine when other duplicate packets should be transmitted. At block 970, the transmitting device 905 may determine that the duplication timer has expired. Such an expiration of the duplication timer may be because no ACK 950 was received from the receiving device 910. ... At block 975, the PDCP entity of the transmitting device 905 may forward a duplicate packet to a second RLC entity different from a first RLC entity based on the duplication timer expiring...”)
Regarding claim 16, Yu in view of VEIJALAINEN teaches claim 1.
Yu further teaches receive a medium access control (MAC) duplication message that indicates a set of radio link control legs to be used to transmit at least a second packet of the one or more packets; and transmit the second packet using the set of radio link control legs. (Yu, see at least para. 168 along with para. 187 “...the indication
530 may indicate a default duplication activation status. For example, the base station 505 may indicate that the UE should duplicate packets as a default status. In other examples, the base station 505 may indicate that the UE should not duplicate packets as a default status. In some instances, the indication 530 may include a single digit or a Boolean value representing whether duplication of packets should be active or inactive...”, note that para. 187 discloses “...In some examples, the activation message 625 may be delivered by a MAC CE...”)
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 17 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be a network entity of claim 17 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the UE of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, in view of claim 17 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in method claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 17, and 20, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
