DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/799200 filed on 08/09/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on application filed on KOREA, REPUBLIC OF KR10-2022-0018460 (02/11/2022) and KOREA, REPUBLIC OF KR10-2022-0032249 (03/15/2022). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Allowable Subject Matters
Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 16 and 18 are objected since they depend on claims 2 and 10 respectively.
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, 3, 9, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1)
As per claim 1, Pelletier discloses “An electronic device comprising: communication circuitry; one or more processors including processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:” [(par. 0003), A method includes the WTRU wirelessly communicating information on a first operating frequency according to a first RAT and wirelessly communicating information on a second operating frequency according to a second RAT.] “select one of a transmission path based on a first radio access technology (RAT) and a transmission path based on a second RAT as a first transmission path, wherein the first transmission path is an uplink data transmission path to be used in the electronic device for a dual connectivity communication,” [(par. 0003), A method includes the WTRU wirelessly communicating information on a first operating frequency according to a first RAT and wirelessly communicating information on a second operating frequency according to a second RAT.] “perform, via the communication circuitry, an operation of stopping uplink data transmission and maintaining uplink control information transmission on a second transmission path other than the first transmission path among the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT,” [(claim 1), in response to detecting the RLF of the serving cell of the first RAT, configured to stop uplink (UL) transmissions for all serving cells of the first RAT; and the transceiver operatively coupled to the processor configured to send an indication of the RLF of the serving cell of the first RAT to an evolved Node B (eNB) connected via a second RAT.] “and perform, via the communication circuitry, an operation of transmitting at least one of uplink data or uplink control information on the first transmission path.” [(par. 0003), A method includes the WTRU wirelessly communicating information on a first operating frequency according to a first RAT and wirelessly communicating information on a second operating frequency according to a second RAT.]
As per claim 3, Pelletier discloses “The electronic device of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: cause a physical (PHY) entity associated with the second transmission path to stop transmission of a transport block (TB) on a radio resource allocated from a base station related to the second RAT” ,” [(claim 1), in response to detecting the RLF of the serving cell of the first RAT, configured to stop uplink (UL) transmissions for all serving cells of the first RAT; and the transceiver operatively coupled to the processor configured to send an indication of the RLF of the serving cell of the first RAT to an evolved Node B (eNB) connected via a second RAT.]
As per claims 9 and 11, as [see rejection of claim 1 and 3.]
As per claim 14, Pelletier discloses “The method of claim 9,” as [see rejection of claim 9.] “wherein the selecting the first transmission path comprises: identifying whether a set condition is satisfied; and selecting the first transmission path, based on identifying that the set condition is satisfied, wherein the set condition comprises at least one of: a condition in which an error rate measured on at least one of the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT is greater than or equal to a threshold error rate, a condition in which a number of non-acknowledgements (NACKs), which are received on at least one of the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT during a set time period, is greater than or equal to a threshold number, a condition for outputting a notification message notifying to perform an operation of transmitting at least one of the uplink data or the uplink control information on the first transmission path, and stopping the uplink data transmission and maintaining the uplink control information transmission on the second transmission path, or a condition for receiving an input requesting to perform an operation of transmitting at least one of the uplink data or the uplink control information on the first transmission path, and stopping the uplink data transmission and maintaining the uplink control information transmission on the second transmission path” [(claim 1), in response to detecting the RLF of the serving cell of the first RAT, configured to stop uplink (UL) transmissions for all serving cells of the first RAT; and the transceiver operatively coupled to the processor configured to send an indication of the RLF of the serving cell of the first RAT to an evolved Node B (eNB) connected via a second RAT.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1) in view of OZTURK et al. (US 2015/0117357 A1).
As per claim 4, Pelletier discloses “The electronic device of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.]
Pelletier does not explicitly disclose “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: cause a radio link control (RLC) entity associated with the second transmission path to transfer uplink data of the RLC entity to a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity associated with the first transmission path and the second transmission path.”
However, OZTURK discloses “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: cause a radio link control (RLC) entity associated with the second transmission path to transfer uplink data of the RLC entity to a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity associated with the first transmission path and the second transmission path” as [(par. 0041), In certain aspects of the wireless communications system 100, data packets are transmitted to a wireless communications device (e.g., UE 115, eNodeB 105) through a first RAT link (e.g., LTE or UMTS link) and a second RAT link (e.g., Wi-Fi link), where each of the data packets has an assigned sequence number value for data packet aggregation at a packet convergence entity (e.g., PDCP entity or RLC entity) within the wireless communications device. Flow control may be performed over the first and second RAT links, where the flow control is configured to prevent one or both of underflow and overflow of buffers for each of the RAT links.]
Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1) and OZTURK et al. (US 2015/0117357 A1) are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor of network communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate OZTURK’s teaching into Pelletier’s teaching. The motivation for making the above modification would be to improve data packet handling at a packet convergence entity. (OZTURK, par. 0001-0006)
As per claim 4, as [see rejections of claim 12.]
Claim 5, 17, 13, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1) in view of OZTURK et al. (US 2015/0208286 A1).
As per claim 5, Pelletier discloses “The electronic device of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.]
Pelletier does not explicitly disclose “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: receive, via the communication circuitry, a radio resource control (RRC) message from at least one of a base station associated with the first RAT or a base station associated with the second RAT, based on the received RRC message, identify whether a set condition is satisfied, and based on identifying that the set condition is satisfied, select the first transmission path”.
However, OZTURK discloses “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: receive, via the communication circuitry, a radio resource control (RRC) message from at least one of a base station associated with the first RAT or a base station associated with the second RAT, based on the received RRC message, identify whether a set condition is satisfied, and based on identifying that the set condition is satisfied, select the first transmission path” as [(par. 0179), The eNB 705-a may determine (e.g., bearer switching decision 806) whether to move a bearer serving data to the UE 715 from a first communication link that uses a first RAT (e.g., LTE) to a second communication link that uses a second RAT (e.g., WiFi.TM.) based on the received information. For example, the received information may include CQI, Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), MCS, buffer size (e.g., per bearer), buffer status report (BSR), channel load for each RAT from the UE, and/or AP. ((par. 0179), In such aspect, the eNB 705-a may initiate a configuration procedure (e.g., an RRC Connection Reconfiguration procedure) between the eNB 705-a and the UE 715 by sending a configuration message 808 (e.g., RRCConnectionReconfigurationMessage) to the UE 715.]
Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1) and OZTURK et al. (US 2015/0208286 A1) are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor of network communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate OZTURK’s teaching into Pelletier’s teaching. The motivation for making the above modification would be to improve data packet handling at a packet convergence entity. (OZTURK, par. 0001-0006)
As per claim 17, Pelletier in view of OZTURK discloses “The electronic device of claim 5,” as [see rejection of claim 5.]
OZTURK discloses “wherein the set condition comprises at least one of: a condition in which an uplink split bearer, which corresponds to the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT, is configured in the electronic device, a condition in which at least one of uplink data transmission on the transmission path based on the first RAT or uplink data transmission on the transmission path based on the second RAT is supported to be stopped, a condition in which a difference between transmission power allocated to a primary path among the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT and transmission power allocated to a secondary path other than the primary path is less than or equal to a first threshold transmission power and is greater than or equal to a second threshold transmission power, a condition in which the difference between the transmission power allocated to the primary path and the transmission power allocated to the secondary path is greater than or equal to the first threshold transmission power, or a condition in which it is indicated to perform an operation of transmitting at least one of the uplink data or the uplink control information on the first transmission path, and stopping the uplink data transmission and maintaining the uplink control information transmission on the second first transmission path” as [(par. 0179), The eNB 705-a may determine (e.g., bearer switching decision 806) whether to move a bearer serving data to the UE 715 from a first communication link that uses a first RAT (e.g., LTE) to a second communication link that uses a second RAT (e.g., WiFi.TM.) based on the received information. For example, the received information may include CQI, Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), MCS, buffer size (e.g., per bearer), buffer status report (BSR), channel load for each RAT from the UE, and/or AP. ((par. 0179), In such aspect, the eNB 705-a may initiate a configuration procedure (e.g., an RRC Connection Reconfiguration procedure) between the eNB 705-a and the UE 715 by sending a configuration message 808 (e.g., RRCConnectionReconfigurationMessage) to the UE 715.]
Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1) and OZTURK et al. (US 2015/0208286 A1) are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor of network communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate OZTURK’s teaching into Pelletier’s teaching. The motivation for making the above modification would be to improve data packet handling at a packet convergence entity. (OZTURK, par. 0001-0006)
As per claims 13 and 19, as [see rejections of claims 5 and 17.]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1) in view of Geekie et al. (US 2020/0351771 A1).
As per claim 6, Pelletier discloses “The electronic device of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.]
Pelletier does not explicitly disclose “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify whether a set condition is satisfied, and based on identifying that the set condition is satisfied, select the first transmission path, and wherein the set condition comprises at least one of: a condition in which an error rate measured on at least one of the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT is greater than or equal to a threshold error rate, a condition in which a number of non-acknowledgements (NACKs), which are received on at least one of the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT during a set time period via the communication circuitry, is greater than or equal to a threshold number, or a condition in which a battery capacity is less than or equal to a threshold battery capacity”.
However, Geekie discloses “” as [(par. 0074), As will be explained elsewhere herein, the power-related condition of the UE 115 can include a battery state of charge of a battery of the UE 115 falling below a battery charge threshold, a temperature reading in the UE 115 exceeding a temperature threshold, a battery voltage of the battery of the UE 115 falling below a battery voltage threshold, and/or the like, or any combination thereof. Since the UE is in an EN-DC mode, the UE 115 may then seek to disconnect from the additional network. In this NSA example, the data traffic with the NR Network 202 is additional or optional as the UE 115 can maintain connectivity to the LTE Network 201, and as such, the UE 115 can seek to disconnect from the NR Network 202. However, in a NSA EN-DC scenario, the LTE Network 201 controls if and when the UE will connect to the NR Network 202. As such, using the communications protocols available to the UE 115, the UE 115 can send a message to the LTE Network 201 to indicate to the LTE Network 201 to release the connection of the UE to the NR Network 202 in order for the UE 115 to conserve power. In a scenario where the UE 115 is in a dual connectivity mode with two NR nodes, it is possible for the UE 115 to send such a message to the NR MN to disconnect from the NR SN, for example.]
Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1) and Geekie et al. (US 2020/0351771 A1) are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor of network communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Geekie’s teaching into Pelletier’s teaching. The motivation for making the above modification would be to improve power management in NSA multi-radio connectivity. (Geekie, par. 0001-0004)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challa et al. (US 20220046738 A1) in view of Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1).
As per claim 15, Challa discloses “An electronic device comprising: communication circuitry; one or more processors comprising processing circuitry; and, memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:” [(par. 0004), To reduce processing overhead, the UE may fall back to using the LTE connection for data signaling. In some examples, the UE may delay or abort adding an NR connection based on the data rate—or estimated data rate—falling below a data rate threshold.] “based on a designated condition being satisfied:” [(par. 0004), To reduce processing overhead, the UE may fall back to using the LTE connection for data signaling. In some examples, the UE may delay or abort adding an NR connection based on the data rate—or estimated data rate—falling below a data rate threshold.] “select one of a transmission path based on a first radio access technology (RAT) and a transmission path based on a second RAT as a first transmission path, wherein the first transmission path is an uplink data transmission path to be used in the electronic device for a dual connectivity communication,” [(par. 0004), The present disclosure provides for a UE to reduce processing overhead by falling back from a non-standalone (NSA) mode (e.g., implementing dual connectivity (DC) between a Long Term Evolution (LTE) connection and a New Radio (NR) connection) to an LTE connection when data transfer for the UE is below a threshold value. For example, a UE maintaining an NR connection for data signaling in a DC mode may be inefficient if the rate of data transfer is relatively low. To reduce processing overhead, the UE may fall back to using the LTE connection for data signaling. In some examples, the UE may delay or abort adding an NR connection based on the data rate—or estimated data rate—falling below a data rate threshold.] “and perform, via the communication circuitry, an operation of transmitting at least one of uplink data or uplink control information on the first transmission path,” [(par. 0003), To reduce processing overhead, the UE may fall back to using the LTE connection for data signaling. In some examples, the UE may delay or abort adding an NR connection based on the data rate—or estimated data rate—falling below a data rate threshold.] “based on the designated condition being unsatisfied:” [(par. 0003), To reduce processing overhead, the UE may fall back to using the LTE connection for data signaling. In some examples, the UE may delay or abort adding an NR connection based on the data rate—or estimated data rate—falling below a data rate threshold.] “based on an amount of the uplink data, transmit the uplink data by using the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT, or by using a primary path among the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT.” [(par. 0004), The present disclosure provides for a UE to reduce processing overhead by falling back from a non-standalone (NSA) mode (e.g., implementing dual connectivity (DC) between a Long Term Evolution (LTE) connection and a New Radio (NR) connection) to an LTE connection when data transfer for the UE is below a threshold value. For example, a UE maintaining an NR connection for data signaling in a DC mode may be inefficient if the rate of data transfer is relatively low. To reduce processing overhead, the UE may fall back to using the LTE connection for data signaling. In some examples, the UE may delay or abort adding an NR connection based on the data rate—or estimated data rate—falling below a data rate threshold.]
Challa does not explicitly disclose “perform, via the communication circuitry, an operation of stopping uplink data transmission and maintaining uplink control information transmission on a second transmission path other than the first transmission path among the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT,”
However, Pelletier discloses “perform, via the communication circuitry, an operation of stopping uplink data transmission and maintaining uplink control information transmission on a second transmission path other than the first transmission path among the transmission path based on the first RAT and the transmission path based on the second RAT,” as [(claim 1), in response to detecting the RLF of the serving cell of the first RAT, configured to stop uplink (UL) transmissions for all serving cells of the first RAT; and the transceiver operatively coupled to the processor configured to send an indication of the RLF of the serving cell of the first RAT to an evolved Node B (eNB) connected via a second RAT.]
Challa et al. (US 20220046738 A1) and Pelletier et al. (US 2016/0309394 A1) are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor of network communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pelletier’s teaching into Challa’s teaching. The motivation for making the above modification would be to allow RLF recovery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications:
Love et al. (US 2012/0184327 A1) [(par. 0039), In FIG. 4, according to another aspect of the disclosure, a multimode wireless communication terminal that communicates using a first radio access technology (RAT) and a second RAT determines, at 410, whether the first RAT and the second RAT are in an active state. At 420, when the wireless communication terminal is transmitting on the first RAT and the second RAT concurrently, the terminal transmits uplink control information (UCI) on a PUSCH on the first RAT if there is a scheduled PUSCH transmission, wherein the UCI would otherwise be transmitted on a PUCCH when the wireless communication terminal is not transmitting using the second RAT while transmitting on the first RAT and there is a scheduled PUSCH on the first RAT.]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (571) 270-3667. 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.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights