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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/2/2025, 4/2/2025, 10/7/2025, and 8/7/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should not repeat information given in the title. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are other than black and white line drawings. For example, FIG. 4 to FIG. 9 and FIG. 12 to FIG. 15 have grayscale and/or dots. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/797,281 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application teach every limitation of the pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The numerous recitations of “that” in claims 1, 2, 8, 14, and 15 are unclear as to which element each “that” is referring to. Examiner suggests explicitly recited the element by replacing each “that” with the element it is referencing. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 2023 0085832 (hereinafter ETRI; PCT/US2024/041322, International Search Report and Written Opinion, used as English language for mapping of the rejection, both documents provided by the applicant in applicant’s own submitted IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, ETRI discloses a method of a clustering control function (CCF) of a wireless communication system (Referring to FIG. 5, an embodiment of a C-RAN in a communication system may include a core network 510 and a C-RAN 520. The C-RAN 520 may include a network of base stations configured in a centralized structure; paragraph [0041]; figure 5), comprising: sending, to a user equipment (UE) that is served by a cluster of base stations of the wireless communication system and that uses a first radio link control (RLC) entity that corresponds to a first sub-cluster of a plurality of sub-clusters of the cluster that is for a plurality of the base stations of the cluster (Referring to FIG. 8, the communication system may include a CP, a plurality of ANs, a plurality of terminals, and the like. The CP can group a plurality of ANs and terminals to form a cluster, and allocate radio resources to the ANs and terminals composed of clusters in the cluster according to the cell-free massive MIMO method. can communicate; paragraph [0054]; For option 7, RRC layer 425, SDAP layer 325, PDCP layer 324 or 424, RLC layer 323 or 423, MAC layer 322 or 422, and upper PHY layer in CP 521; paragraph [0047]; figures 6, 8), a first message comprising a first request that the UE use a radio bearer for first traffic of the first RLC entity (intended use of first message so no patentable weight); and receiving, from the UE, a second message acknowledging (In step 840, when the clustering operation is completed by performing steps 810 to 830, the CP allocates cluster resources and performs a measurement operation so that the base station and the terminal perform cell-leaving (CFm) communication; paragraph [0058]; figure 8) that the UE uses the radio bearer for the first traffic of the first RLC entity (intended use so no patentable weight).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, ETRI discloses wherein the UE further uses a second RLC entity that corresponds to a second sub-cluster of the plurality of sub-clusters of the cluster (Referring to FIG. 8, the communication system may include a CP, a plurality of ANs, a plurality of terminals, and the like. The CP can group a plurality of ANs and terminals to form a cluster, and allocate radio resources to the ANs and terminals composed of clusters in the cluster according to the cell-free massive MIMO method. can communicate; paragraph [0054]; For option 7, RRC layer 425, SDAP layer 325, PDCP layer 324 or 424, RLC layer 323 or 423, MAC layer 322 or 422, and upper PHY layer in CP 521; paragraph [0047]; figures 6, 8), and further comprising: sending, to the UE, a third message comprising a second request for the UE to use the radio bearer for second traffic of the second RLC entity (intended use of third message so no patentable weight); and receiving, from the UE, a fourth message acknowledging (In step 840, when the clustering operation is completed by performing steps 810 to 830, the CP allocates cluster resources and performs a measurement operation so that the base station and the terminal perform cell-leaving (CFm) communication; paragraph [0058]; figure 8) that the UE uses the radio bearer for the second traffic of the second RLC entity (intended use so no patentable weight).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, ETRI discloses wherein the first message further comprises an identifier for the first request (paragraphs [0079-[0091] where a series of these parameters are provided; paragraphs [0119]-[0131], figure 13).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, ETRI discloses wherein the first message further comprises configuration information for one or more of: a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity; the first RLC entity; and a medium access control (MAC) entity (paragraphs [0079-[0091] where a series of these parameters are provided; paragraph [0047] and figure 6 a series of options regarding the functionalities that the CP may perform for each layer, all these options including the SDAP layer for the cluster being executed in the CP, see e.g. "In the case of option 5, the RRC layer 425, the SDAP layer 325, the PDCP layer 324 or 424, the RLC layer 323 or 423 and the upper MAC layer may be performed in the CP 521").
Regarding claims 5 and 10, ETRI discloses wherein the first message further comprises an RLC buffer synchronization requirement (paragraphs [0079-[0091] where a series of these parameters are provided; paragraphs [0119]-[0131], figure 13).
Regarding claims 6, 11, ETRI discloses wherein the first message further comprises a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) routing operational mode indication (paragraphs [0079-[0091] where a series of these parameters are provided; paragraphs [0119]-[0131], figure 13).
Regarding claim 7, ETRI discloses wherein the first message further comprises one or more of: a radio resource control (RRC) status of the UE; a radio resource management (RRM) configuration for the UE; quality of service (QOS) flow to data radio bearer (DRB) mapping information; radio access technology (RAT) capability information for the UE; an RLC buffer status report for the UE; protocol data unit (PDU) session information; and network slicing information (paragraphs [0037], [0039] that "The SDAP layers 315 and 325 may perform mapping between QoS flows and radio bearers, marking QoS flow identifiers (IDs) in downlink and uplink packets" (paragraph [0037]) and "RB] may mean a logical path provided by the first and second layers of the radio protocol for data transfer between the terminal 310 or 410 and the base station 320 or 420. In general, setting an RB may mean a process of specifying characteristics of a radio protocol layer and a channel required to provide a specific service, and setting specific parameters and operation methods for each. The RB may include a signaling RB (SRB) and a data RB (DRB)" (paragraph [0039])).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, ETRI discloses wherein the second message further comprises a second acknowledgement of an RLC buffer synchronization requirement (paragraphs [0079-[0091] where a series of these parameters are provided; paragraphs [0119]-[0131], figure 13).
Regarding claim 16, ETRI discloses wherein the second message further comprises an identifier for the cluster (paragraphs [0079-[0091] where a series of these parameters are provided; paragraphs [0119]-[0131], figure 13).
Regarding claim 17, ETRI discloses wherein the second message further comprises an identifier for the first sub-cluster (paragraphs [0079-[0091] where a series of these parameters are provided; paragraphs [0119]-[0131], figure 13).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, ETRI discloses wherein the second message further indicates a second acknowledgement of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) routing operational mode (paragraphs [0079-[0091] where a series of these parameters are provided; paragraphs [0119]-[0131], figure 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi (US 11,405,832) details performing cell change procedure in a wireless communication system.
Uemura (US 10,321,502) details efficient communication control.
Zhong (US 10,165,615) details data retransmission communication.
Talukdar (US 10,034,295) details coordination of downlink channel assignments for communication with cluster of access points in wireless network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (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 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights