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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024, 01/16/2025 and 10/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2020/0092746 A1), hereinafter Baek, in view of Tabet et al. (US 2015/0181638 A1), hereinafter Tabet.
Regarding Claims 1:
Baek teaches a method for managing carrier aggregation (CA) duplication in a network entity ( [0068] "FIG. 1 illustrates a radio bearer structure 100 in an LTE carrier aggregation (CA) environment"; [0069] "the packet duplication procedure includes performing a process of data duplication and then transmitting the data through different logical channels"; [0133] "a base station 3900 may include a transceiver 3910 and a controller 3930");
configuring a plurality of carrier paths in at least one radio link control (RLC) entity of the network entity ([0075] "an RLC apparatus (or, entity) of radio bearer A 410 copies an RLC protocol data unit (PDU), and transmits the copied RLC PDUs through different logical channels, respectively"; [0075] "The RLC apparatus of radio bearer A 410 is mapped to logical channels #1 and #2");
configuring at least one path as a primary path and at least another path as a secondary path from among the plurality of configured carrier paths based on a path configuration criteria ([0081] "logical channel #1 620 is configured as a primary logical channel, and logical channel #2 630 is configured as a secondary logical channel"; [0127] "when the Ci value is 0, the corresponding CC is used in a primary logical channel, and when the Ci value is 1, the corresponding CC is used in the secondary logical channel"; [0138] "A logical channel having a small logical channel ID value is determined as a primary logical channel"; [0140]: "A logical channel having a PCell among cells having been mapped to logical channels is determined as a primary logical channel"; refer to paragraph [0142]: "a logical channel, of which the minimum SCell index value of an SCell among SCells mapped to the logical channel is smaller than the minimum SCell index values of the other logical channels, is determined as the primary logical channel");
transmitting the data packets on the selected paths ([0137] "when packet duplication is activated, the same PDCP PDU is transmitted through the primary logical channel and the secondary logical channel, respectively"; [0137] "When packet duplication is deactivated, the PDCP PDU is transmitted through the primary logical channel only")
Baek does not explicitly teach selecting at least one of the primary path and the secondary path for transmission of data packets based on at least one of the path configuration criteria and a packet-specific criteria.
Tabet teaches selecting at least one of the primary path and the secondary path for transmission of data packets based on at least one of the path configuration criteria and a packet-specific criteria ([0079] "select whether to communicate RLC segments over the primary carrier or the secondary carrier" based on "a priority level," "an application type," prior "RLC retransmissions," and "good channel conditions");
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Tabet's packet- and carrier-aware selection policy to Baek's configured primary and secondary paths so that each packet uses the path suited to its priority and current carrier condition, predictably improving latency and reliability.
Regarding Claim 15, is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 1; where Baek further teaches a network entity for managing carrier aggregation (CA) duplication, the network entity comprising: memory storing one or more computer programs; communication circuitry; and one or more processors operably coupled to the memory and the communication circuitry ([0048] "the base station 102 may include processor(s) 404 which may execute program instructions for the base station 102" and the processors may be "coupled to memory management unit (MMU) 440" for locations in memory; [0051] "The antenna(s) 434 may be configured to operate as a wireless transceiver"; [0053] the processor implements methods by "executing program instructions stored on a memory medium"). Baek independently discloses "a transceiver 3910 and a controller 3930," that the controller "may include at least one processor," and that the two "may be electrically connected to each other" (Baek [0133]).
Regarding Claim 20, is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 1; Baek further teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a network entity, cause the network entity to perform operations ([0023] "Memory Medium-Any of various types of non-transitory memory devices or storage devices" and "The memory medium may store program instructions (e.g., embodied as computer programs) that may be executed by one or more processors"; [0090] "a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium may be configured so that it stores program instructions and/or data" and "the program instructions, if executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to perform a method").
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek and Tabet, and further in view of Virtej et al. (US 2018/0206173 A1), hereinafter Virtej.
Regarding Claims 2 and 16: Baek and Tabet teach the method of claim 1.
Baek further teaches the event-to-configuration nexus for configuring, upon detecting the occurrence of the event, the at least one path as the primary path and the at least another path as the secondary path ([0128] "if the measured value satisfies the triggering condition (S3720), the terminal transmits a measurement report message to a base station (S3730), and based on this, the base station instructs the configuration of a radio bearer that performs packet duplication (S3740)"; [0081] "The primary and secondary logical channels may be designated by a base station, through the RRC configuration"; [0127]: "A terminal may change mapping between the logical channel and the CC by receiving the duplication carrier mapping message").
Baek and Tabet do not explicitly teach detecting an occurrence of an event as a trigger for path configuration, wherein the event comprises either an expiry of pre-configured periodicity, after every N packet transmission and at downlink data delivery status (DDDS) transmission or a combination of any based on implementation.
Virtej teaches detecting an occurrence of an event as a trigger for path configuration, wherein the event comprises either an expiry of pre-configured periodicity, after every N packet transmission and at downlink data delivery status (DDDS) transmission or a combination of any based on implementation ([0153] "at regular intervals"; [0180] "Periodicity could be configurable"; [0148] "every second packet, or 2 out of 3"; [0221]: "On arrival of a DL DATA DELIVERY STATUS message"; [0226]-[0228]: "Set the trigger to check the SDU at the head of the PDCP queue" and "Calculate PDUsize"; [0229]: "path via MeNB faster than via SeNB". Examiner finding — Virtej's every-second-packet rule is the claimed every-N rule with N=2; execution at a configured regular interval necessarily follows expiration of that interval; and Virtej's DDDS disclosure is an arrival event rather than a literal transmission event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Virtej's periodic, packet-count, and DDDS routing events so the primary/secondary assignment is refreshed when new routing and delivery information becomes available.
Claim 16 recites the programmed network-entity counterpart of Claim 2. It is rejected for the same reasons and citations stated for Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek and Tabet, in further view of Kela et al. (US 2022/0264354 A1), hereinafter Kela.
Regarding Claims 3: Baek and Tabet teach the method of claim 1.
Baek and Tabet do not explicitly teach wherein the path configuration criteria comprise one or more parameters, wherein the one or more parameter comprises a signal quality indicator, a transmission success rate, and a signal quality to a transmission result mapping, and wherein the signal quality indicator comprises a channel quality indicator (CQI), a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), and a reference signal received power (RSRP).
Kela teaches wherein the path configuration criteria comprise one or more parameters, wherein the one or more parameter comprises a signal quality indicator, a transmission success rate, and a signal quality to a transmission result mapping, and wherein the signal quality indicator comprises a channel quality indicator (CQI), a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), and a reference signal received power (RSRP) ([0064] "One of the legs may have a better quality than others, for example higher reference signals received power, RSRP, reference signal received quality, RSRQ, or signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio, SINR"; [0066] "The reliability estimate may indicate for example the transmission success probability of a transmission leg"; [0067] "the success rate of past transmissions may be used to obtain error probabilities for the legs" and the reliability estimate may use "SINR, RSRP, RSRQ, channel quality indicator, CQI"; [0067] "the reliability estimate may be obtained with link-to-system mapping, where SINR and MCS are converted to error probability" and receiver feedback may include "CQI reports," "acknowledgement, ACK, signals," or "negative-acknowledgement, NACK, signals"). The Examiner reads Kela's SINR/MCS-to-error-probability mapping together with the ACK/NACK outcomes as the claimed signal-quality-to-transmission-result mapping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kela to the teaching of Baek and Tabet . The motivation would be to rank transmission legs by reliability and assign packets to the more reliable leg.
Claim 17 recites the programmed network-entity counterpart of Claim 3. It is rejected for the same reasons and citations stated for Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek and Tabet, and further in view of Joseph et al. (US 2020/0404660 A1), hereinafter Joseph.
Regarding Claim 4: Baek and Tabet teach the method of claim 1.
Baek and Tabet further teach wherein the packet-specific criteria comprise at least one of a packet reliability requirement, a packet latency requirement, and a packet type (Baek [0071] "the main purpose thereof is to increase reliability and reduce latency"; Baek [0073] "Whether or not the bearer allows packet duplication may be determined according to the type of traffic the packet contains" and duplication may use a "QoS configuration value of data"; Tabet [0079]: considerations include "a priority level," "an application type," prior "RLC retransmissions," and application types whose communications are "latency sensitive").
Baek and Tabet do not explicitly teach wherein the packet type comprises a new packet, a retransmission packet, and a high priority packet.
Joseph teaches wherein the packet type comprises a new packet, a retransmission packet, and a high priority packet ([0029] "the uplink packet transmission may be an initial transmission of the uplink packet or a retransmission of the uplink packet"; [0032] carrier selection may use "a number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmissions of a copy of the uplink packet or a number of HARQ retransmissions of a copy of a previous uplink packet"). Tabet supplies the remaining category (refer to paragraph [0086]: "RLC segments with high priority (as may be defined in any of a variety of ways and/or based on any of a variety of considerations) may be sent over a component carrier experiencing (or expected to experience) better channel conditions").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Joseph's initial-versus-retransmission status to Baek and Tabet's reliability, latency, traffic-type, and priority criteria so duplication resources are predictably directed to packets most likely to benefit.
Claim 18 recites the programmed network-entity counterpart of Claim 4. It is rejected for the same reasons and citations stated for Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek and Tabet, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2022/0030616 A1), hereinafter Xiao.
Regarding Claim 5: Baek and Tabet teaches the method of Claim 1.
Baek and Tabet do not explicitly teach maintaining a mapping of serving cell groups to the configured primary path and the secondary path.
Xiao teaches maintaining a mapping of serving cell groups to the configured primary path and the secondary path ([0083] "the activation indicator comprises two information elements, namely, a primary path indicator (denoted as PrimaryPath) and a secondary path indicator (denoted as SecondaryPath)"; the primary-path indicator includes "a cell group identity (i.e., cell group ID) for indicating a cell group of a primary path" and a logical-channel identity "for indicating a logical channel of the primary path"; the secondary-path indicator includes "a cell group identity for indicating a cell group of a secondary path" and a logical-channel identity "for indicating a logical channel of the secondary path"). Xiao thus expressly stores the cell-group and logical-channel identities in separate primary- and secondary-path indicators. The Examiner applies that known role-to-group mapping to Baek primary and secondary logical-channel paths in the one-RLC arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Xiao to the teaching of Baek and Tabet, so the network and UE can unambiguously preserve which serving-cell group belongs to each duplication path.
Claim 19 recites the programmed network-entity counterpart of Claim 5. It is rejected for the same reasons and citations stated for claim 5.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Tabet and Xiao, and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2020/0053632 A1), hereinafter Löhr.
Regarding Claim 6: Baek in view of Tabet and Sharp teaches the method of Claim 5.
Baek and Tabet do not explicitly teach, however Xiao teaches indicating, by a network entity, the mapping of the serving cell groups to a user equipment (UE) ([0053] "the user equipment (UE) receives from a base station a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) duplication configuration information of a bearer"; [0061]-[0062] the base station generates the RRC message and "transmits the PDCP duplication configuration information of the bearer to user equipment (UE)"; [0083] the configuration contains separate PrimaryPath and SecondaryPath information elements having their respective cell-group identities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Xiao to the teaching of Baek and Tabet, so the network and UE can unambiguously preserve which serving-cell group belongs to each duplication path.
Baek in view of Tabet and Xiao does not explicitly teach the added-field structure for adding a new field within a logical channel configuration information element (IE) under uplink (UL) specific parameters for serving cells.
Löhr teaches the added-field structure for adding a new field within a logical channel configuration information element (IE) under uplink (UL) specific parameters for serving cells ([0071] "This duplication deactivated allowed serving cells IE can be included in the LogicalChannelConfig IE as an allowedServingCells-duplication IE"; [0074] the IE may be "inside of logicalchannelconfig IE but applicable only for the primaryPath"; [0068] cell restrictions are applied "only for the LCH of the bearer for which the LogicalChannelIdentity is included as primaryPath (primary RLC entity/LCH)"; Figure 5 depicts allowedServingCells and allowedServingCells-duplication within ul-SpecificParameters of LogicalChannelConfig).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Löhr to the teaching of Baek and Tabet and Xiao, so the UE can enforce the serving-cell-group mapping already maintained for that duplication path.
Regarding Claim 9: Baek in view of Tabet and Xiao teaches the method of claim 5.
Baek in view of Tabet and Xiao does not explicitly teach indicating, by a network entity, the mapping of the serving cell groups to a User Equipment (UE) with a new field in a LogicalChannelConfig IE under ul-SpecificParameters for primary and secondary serving cells separately.
Löhr teaches the two-field signaling structure for "a new field in a LogicalChannelConfig IE under ul-SpecificParameters" ([0116]: "The duplication deactivated cell restriction IE can be a first allowedServingCells IE and the second cell restriction IE can be a second allowedServingCells IE" and "an allowedServingCells IE and an allowedServingCells-duplication IE can be sent in the same RRC message"; Figure 5 depicts the two serving-cell fields under ul-SpecificParameters of LogicalChannelConfig).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Löhr to the teaching of Baek and Tabet and Xiao, to provide the separate role-associated fields so each path retains its own eligible-cell set and duplicated packets remain on different carriers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Tabet, and further in view of ETSI TS 144 060 V14.2.0 (2017-10), hereinafter TS 44.060.
Regarding Claim 7: Baek and Tabet teaches the method of claim 1.
Baek further teaches the available alternatives of utilizing a single RLC entity ... or utilizing a plurality of RLC entities ([0075] "an RLC apparatus (or, entity) of radio bearer A 410 copies an RLC protocol data unit (PDU), and transmits the copied RLC PDUs through different logical channels, respectively"; [0070] the PDCP entity "transmits the copied PDCP PDUs to different RLC devices, respectively").
Baek and Tabet do explicitly teach determining the optional endpoint-support convention for utilizing a single RLC entity ... when the single RLC entity mode is supported by the network entity and the UE.
TS 44.060 teaches determining the optional endpoint-support convention for utilizing a single RLC entity ... when the single RLC entity mode is supported by the network entity and the UE (section 5.12, page 75: "support for Enhanced Multiplexing for a Single RLC Entity (EMSR) is optional" and "The mobile station shall indicate its support for EMSR"; section 8.1.1.1.2, page 133: "If both the mobile station and the network support EMST or EMSR"; section 5.11, pages 74-75: an EMST-capable mobile "shall be able to operate up to three RLC entities on a single TBF concurrently").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of to apply TS 44.060's bilateral capability check to Baek and Tabet, to avoid installing an unsupported one-RLC configuration while retaining duplication through a compatible plural-RLC configuration.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Tabet, and further in view of Sèbire et al. (US 2021/0282002 A1), hereinafter Sèbire.
Regarding Claim 8: Baek in view of Tabet teaches the method of Claim 1.
Baek in view of Tabet does not explicitly teach the explicit-request alternative for receiving, from a user equipment (UE), an indication that the UE supports a single RLC entity mode ... upon receiving an explicit information request from the network entity.
Sèbire teaches the explicit-request alternative for receiving, from a user equipment (UE), an indication that the UE supports a single RLC entity mode ... upon receiving an explicit information request from the network entity ([0023] "a new UE capability" that signals "count information regarding the RLC entities"; [0027] "the network may request the UE to provide its capabilities"; [0028] "the UE 102 may send to the network 104 its capabilities with respect to any additional RLC entities"; [0029] "N additional RLC entities (or N total RLC entities)";[0030] the network decides the number "based on UE capabilities"; [0031] "an RRC reconfiguration including the additional RLC entities" for duplication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Sèbire so the network does not install an RLC arrangement beyond the UE's supported count.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek and Tabet, and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 2018/0376457 A1), hereinafter Tseng.
Regarding Claim 12: Baek in view of Tabet teaches the method of Claim 1.
Samsung and Tabet does not explicitly teach "wherein the method is applicable independently for each leg of dual connectivity (DC) when duplication is configured".
Tseng teaches wherein the method is applicable independently for each leg of dual connectivity (DC) when duplication is configured ([0067] "The selected radio bearers may be in the same cell group or different cell groups," and "the MAC entity of each cell group may multiplex the duplicated packets and put the duplicated packets onto multiple component carriers"; [0068]: duplicated PDCP PDU packets are sent to RLC bearers "in master cell group (MCG) 110" and to RLC bearers "in secondary cell group (SCG) 120," and are then "sent through multiple component carriers"; [0106]-[0108]: the MN and SNs may each provide mapping configurations for their corresponding MCG and SCGs; [0114]: "the re-selection of each operation cell may be implemented independently"). The Examiner treats the separately configured MCG and SCG radio-bearer/MAC processing as applying the Samsung-Tabet CA-duplication operations independently to each DC leg; Tseng does not repeat every operation of Claim 1 within each group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Tseng's MCG and SCG bearer/MAC processing so each DC leg preserves its own carrier mapping and scheduling while providing duplicated delivery across the legs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST. 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 at (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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights