DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the correspondence filed on 12/06/2024. This application is a continuation of PCT/CN2019/130950 filed 12/31/2019. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/06/2024 and 05/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claims 6-12 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12192773 B2 (US Application No. 17852739). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are anticipated by the patented claims. The claims in the instant application are essentially the same while broader in scope than the ones in the issued patent. The instant application has the basic elements of a communication method using logical channel identifier (LCID) and packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) detailed in both claims while the issued patent has the additional details like a second LCID as an input parameter of a security algorithm of a second PDCP entity (which is also recited in a later dependent claim in the instant application) as seen in the example below in claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the issued patent.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12192773 B2
6. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations, the operations comprising:
determining a logical channel identifier (LCID) meeting a preset condition, wherein a first packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the apparatus is associated with two or more logical channels (LCHs);
receiving a first data packet from a second terminal; and
parsing, by the first PDCP entity of the apparatus, the first data packet based on the LCID.
1. A communication method, comprising:
determining, by a first terminal, a first logical channel identifier (LCID) meeting a preset condition, wherein a first packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the first terminal is associated with two or more logical channels (LCHs);
receiving, by the first terminal, a first data packet from a second terminal, wherein security protection is performed on the first packet using a second LCID as an input parameter of a security algorithm of a second PDCP entity of the second terminal; and
parsing, by the first PDCP entity of the first terminal, the first data packet using the first LCID, wherein the preset condition met by the first LCID used by the first PDCP entity of the first terminal to parse the first data packet is the same as a preset condition met by the second LCID used by the second terminal to perform the security protection on the first data packet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 20, “The apparatus” was never recited before. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests that “The communication apparatus” can be used in the first occurrence of the term in each claim set instead.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HUAWEI et al. (NPL - "Further discussion on LCID configuration for sidelink PDCP duplication" per IDS, referred to as D1).
Regarding claim 6, D1 anticipates,
6. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations, the operations comprising: (D1: Section 3: "Rx UE")
determining a logical channel identifier (LCID) meeting a preset condition, wherein a first packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the apparatus is associated with two or more logical channels (LCHs); (D1: Section 3, 1st paragraph: " ... the Tx UE can indicate which two LCIDs are corresponding to a pair of duplicated side/ink logical channel (LCH) along with the transmissions of the side/ink MAC PDUs. ln this case, when the Rx UE receives MAC POUs from different carriers, it can know that the MAC SDUs corresponding to these two LCIDs indicated are the duplicated packets that should be delivered to the duplicated LCHs of the same PDCP entity. To overcome the inter-operability issue, this indication of the duplicated LCIDs is realized by using the two "R'' fields in the existing MAC subheader for SL-SCH (see Appendix B).)
receiving a first data packet from a second terminal; and (D1: Section 3: "Tx UE")
parsing, by the first PDCP entity of the apparatus, the first data packet based on the LCID. (D1: Section 3, 1st paragraph: " ... the Tx UE can indicate which two LCIDs are corresponding to a pair of duplicated side/ink logical channel (LCH) along with the transmissions of the side/ink MAC PDUs. ln this case, when the Rx UE receives MAC POUs from different carriers, it can know that the MAC SDUs corresponding to these two LCIDs indicated are the duplicated packets that should be delivered to the duplicated LCHs of the same PDCP entity. To overcome the inter-operability issue, this indication of the duplicated LCIDs is realized by using the two "R'' fields in the existing MAC subheader for SL-SCH (see Appendix B). Specifically, if two MAC subheaders received by the UE are with the same "RR" field value (regardless of which carrier they are received from), the corresponding LCIDs included in the MAC subheaders refer to a pair of duplicated LCHs, and the corresponding two MAC SDUs will be delivered to the same PDCP entity.")
Regarding claim 7, D1 further anticipates,
7. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the preset condition comprises a first preset condition, and a size of the LCID meets the first preset condition. (D1: Section 3, 1st paragraph: " ... the Tx UE can indicate which two LCIDs are corresponding to a pair of duplicated side/ink logical channel (LCH) along with the transmissions of the side/ink MAC PDUs. ln this case, when the Rx UE receives MAC POUs from different carriers, it can know that the MAC SDUs corresponding to these two LCIDs indicated are the duplicated packets that should be delivered to the duplicated LCHs of the same PDCP entity. To overcome the inter-operability issue, this indication of the duplicated LCIDs is realized by using the two "R'' fields in the existing MAC subheader for SL-SCH (see Appendix B). Specifically, if two MAC subheaders received by the UE are with the same "RR" field value (regardless of which carrier they are received from), the corresponding LCIDs included in the MAC subheaders refer to a pair of duplicated LCHs, and the corresponding two MAC SDUs will be delivered to the same PDCP entity." (decoding LCIDs having the same size))
Regarding claim 8, D1 further anticipates,
8. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 7, wherein the determining a logical channel identifier (LCID) meeting a preset condition comprises: (D1: Section 3, 1st paragraph)
determining according to a preset rule, an LCID meeting the first preset condition, wherein the preset rule is predefined. (D1: Section 3, 1st paragraph: " ... the Tx UE can indicate which two LCIDs are corresponding to a pair of duplicated side/ink logical channel (LCH) along with the transmissions of the side/ink MAC PDUs. ln this case, when the Rx UE receives MAC POUs from different carriers, it can know that the MAC SDUs corresponding to these two LCIDs indicated are the duplicated packets that should be delivered to the duplicated LCHs of the same PDCP entity. To overcome the inter-operability issue, this indication of the duplicated LCIDs is realized by using the two "R'' fields in the existing MAC subheader for SL-SCH (see Appendix B).)
Regarding claim 10, D1 further anticipates,
10. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 9, wherein the determining a logical channel identifier (LCID) meeting a preset condition (D1: Section 3, 1st paragraph)
comprises:
determining, based on the first indication information, the LCID meeting the first preset condition. (D1: Section 3, 1st paragraph: " ... the Tx UE can indicate which two LCIDs are corresponding to a pair of duplicated side/ink logical channel (LCH) along with the transmissions of the side/ink MAC PDUs. ln this case, when the Rx UE receives MAC POUs from different carriers, it can know that the MAC SDUs corresponding to these two LCIDs indicated are the duplicated packets that should be delivered to the duplicated LCHs of the same PDCP entity. To overcome the inter-operability issue, this indication of the duplicated LCIDs is realized by using the two "R'' fields in the existing MAC subheader for SL-SCH (see Appendix B).)
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, 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 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 et al. (NPL - "On potential RAN2 impacts related to security design for NR SL" per IDS, referred to as D3).
Regarding claim 9, D1 discloses,
9. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving first indication information from the second terminal, (D1: Section 3: "Tx UE")
D1 does not explicitly disclose, however D3 teaches,
wherein the first indication information indicates a first terminal to use an LCID meeting the first preset condition as an input parameter of a security algorithm of the first PDCP entity. (D3: page 3, 3rd paragraph that the "LCID is used as the input of the ciphering and integrity algorithms for NR SL unicast communications".)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of D3 into the teachings of D1 with a motivation to increase the security in 3GPP sidelink based communications between two terminals by using the LCID as an input parameter.
Regarding claim 11, D1 discloses,
11. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 10,
D1 does not explicitly disclose, however D3 teaches,
wherein the first indication information is carried in first sidelink radio bearer (SLRB) configuration information, and the first SLRB configuration information is carried in a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) message. D3: page 3, Fig. 1; 3rd paragraph; the SLRB ID used for each SLRB configured can be exchanged and thus aligned between the two UEs for unicast communication (if needed) via PC5 RRC.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of Zhang et al. (WIPO/PCT WO 2018/171512 A1 per IDS, referred to as D5).
Regarding claim 12, D1 discloses,
12. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 7,
D1 does not explicitly disclose, however D5 teaches,
wherein the LCID meeting the first preset condition is a smallest LCID or a largest LCID in LCIDs corresponding to the two or more LCHs. (D5: P. 42, 1st para; only the PDCP entity transmittable data indicates to the smaller or the smallest or the largest or largest of the logical channel identifiers of the two logical channels of the packet repetition DRB or the packet repetition SRB association.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of D5 into the teachings of D1 with a motivation to enable the packet repetition function of the PDCP entity by indicating the smallest or the largest LCID (D5 P. 41-42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13-17 are allowed.
Claims 2-5 and 20 contain allowable subject matter but remain rejected under 112 rejections.
Claims 18-19 contain allowable subject matter but remain rejected under nonstatutory double patenting rejections. They are also objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Although prior arts D1, D3 and D5 above disclose all the limitations of the prior claims (see rejections above), none of the prior arts of record alone or in combination discloses sending the first data packet on which security protection is performed to a first terminal, wherein the LCID is an input parameter used when a first PDCP entity of the first terminal parses the first data packet; the first LCID used by the first PDCP entity of the apparatus to parse the first data packet is the same as a second LCID used by a second PDCP entity of the second terminal to perform security protection on the first data packet; and the first indication information includes a second LCID used by a second PDCP entity of the second terminal to perform security protection on the first data packet as described in the claims.
At the effective filing date of the application, the above limitations would not have been obvious over the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHANG; Yanxia et al. US-PGPUB US 20210021496 A1 Data duplication function at a PDCP
Wu; Zhibin et al. US-PGPUB US 20230397278 A1 Bidirectional Sidelink Radio Link Control Bearers
ZHAO; Yali US-PGPUB US 20230354459 A1 Sidelink interface bearer configuration change method, and terminal
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KA SHAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)272-1569. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 9AM-5:30PM EST Alternate Fridays.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on (571) 270-3351. 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.
/KA SHAN CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights