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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 01, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7, 9 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, with one exception. For reasons explained in the updated grounds of rejection below, Wu has been determined to be applicable the 2nd and 3rd added limitations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2020/0059991, supported by paragraphs 28-31, 43-46 and Figure 4 of provisional 62/764,806) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0205220, Lee hereafter, previously cited in the action mailed June 18, 2025) and further in view of Bhalla et al. (US 2011/0080870, Bhalla hereafter).
RE claims 7 and 10, Wu discloses a single terminal (Figure 2, 110) and method for performing communication in dual connectivity, the single terminal comprising: a transmitter that: performs a first communication with a first base station, which is a master node using a first radio access technology (RAT) (Figure 2, LTE Transceiver 206, Paragraph 60 discloses a UE with these transceivers establishes a connection with a master node using one wireless protocol, and a second connection with a secondary node using a second wireless protocol. The first and second protocols may be the same or different), and performs a second communication with a second base station, which is a secondary node using a second RAT (Figure 2, 5G NR Transceiver 208, Paragraph 60 discloses a UE with these transceivers establishes a connection with a master node using one wireless protocol, and a second connection with a secondary node using a second wireless protocol. The first and second protocols may be the same or different)); a receiver that receives configuration information for a data activity timer (Paragraph 71, “In an implementation, the UE 110 may be configured by an RRC message to enable data inactivity monitoring (e.g., use a dual-data inactivity timer 218) by at least one of the master node 402 or the secondary node 404. For example, the master node 402 may transmit an RRC message (e.g., a Master Node (MN) timer configuration message 515) to the UE 110 to configure the UE 110 to use the dual-data inactivity timer. The MN timer configuration message 515 may include at least one of a timer value (duration) of the dual-data inactivity timer or parameter(s) for the UE 110 to derive a duration of a timer value for the dual-data inactivity timer.”); a first Medium Access Control (MAC) entity configured to be associated with the first communication (Paragraph 60 further discloses the UE includes “includes suitable MAC entities (e.g., a first MAC entity for the master cell group, a second MAC entity for the secondary cell group)); a second MAC entity configured to be associated with the second communication (Paragraph 60 further discloses the UE includes “includes suitable MAC entities (e.g., a first MAC entity for the master cell group, a second MAC entity for the secondary cell group)); and a processor that: starts or restarts the single data inactivity timer when data transmission occurs at the first MAC entity associated with the first communication, and starts or restarts the single data inactivity timer when data transmission occurs at the second MAC entity associated with the second communication (Paragraph 64 discloses: “The UE 110 is configured to start or restart the dual-data inactivity timer whenever at least one of the first MAC entity 332 or the second MAC entity 334 transmits a MAC Service Data Unit (SDU) for a logical channel (LCH) (e.g., DTCH logical channel, DCCH logical channel, CCCH logical channel), or at least one of the first MAC entity 332 or the second MAC entity 334 receives a MAC SDU for an LCH (e.g., DTCH logical channel, DCCH logical channel). In aspects, the UE 110 is configured to start or restart the dual-data inactivity timer whenever a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is sent or received from at least one of the first MAC entity 332 or the second MAC entity 334.”), wherein the processor transitions a Radio Resource Control (RRC) state to RRC IDLE upon detection of expiration of the single data inactivity timer (Paragraph 69: “the dual-data inactivity timer expires if none of the MAC entities receive or transmit a MAC SDU for an LCH within a time period (e.g., the duration of the dual-data inactivity timer).”, and “Upon receiving the expiry indication from the lower layers, the UE 110 transitions from a connected mode at a radio resource control layer (e.g., the RRC connected state) to an a idle mode at a radio resource control layer (e.g., the RRC idle state) and the UE 110 initiates an RRC connection release procedure releasing the RRC connections for all nodes (e.g., the master node and the secondary node).”).
Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the terminal transmits terminal capability information related to a data inactivity monitoring function; a single data inactivity timer that is configured only for the first MAC entity based on the configuration information for the data inactivity timer; wherein the data transmission which may occur at the first MAC entity and/or second MAC entity is of a service data unit.
However, Lee teaches starting or restarting a data inactivity timer according to the transmission of a service data unit (Paragraph 105, arrival or transmission of a MAC service data unit (SDU) by the MAC layer of a UE will cause the UE to start or restart an a configured data inactivity timer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the terminal and method of Wu with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Wu in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the terminal transmits terminal capability information related to a data inactivity monitoring function; and a single data inactivity timer that is configured that is configured only for the first MAC entity based on the configuration information for the data inactivity timer.
However, Bhalla teaches wherein the terminal transmits terminal capability information related to a data inactivity monitoring function (Paragraphs 75-80, inclusive of Table 10, teaches a UE which signals UE capabilities to a network device. This capability includes indication of whether or not the supports a Max PPP Inactivity Timer. This is a timer that monitors the duration of inactivity with respect to reception and transmission of data. Paragraph 81 further teaching as such. The timer is reset upon detection of any traffic over any service connection).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the terminal and method of Wu in view of Lee with the teachings of Bhalla since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement in order to predictably yield a system in which a UE makes its ability to monitor for transmission/reception inactivity known to the network.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Lastly, Wu in view of Lee and further in view of Bhalla discloses the claimed invention except for a single data inactivity timer that is configured that is configured only for the first MAC entity based on the configuration information for the data inactivity timer.
However, at paragraphs 62-74 Wu discloses a single timer, configured by the network via RRC message from the MN or SN, which is started or restarted upon activity on either MAC entity. Paragraphs 75-94 provide for an alternative embodiment in which the MN configures a timer for the first MAC entity and the SN configures the timer for the second MAC entity. These embodiments are not disclosed as competing embodiments. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized from these embodiments that both address the issue of inadvertent idle mode, and Wu’s teachings provide for the predictable variation of a single timer configured for a MAC entity associated with the MN that starts or restarts when activity is detected over either MAC entity. This rationale is further supported by the teachings set forth above from Bhalla at paragraph 81 with Bhalla teaching a single timer, configured by the network, that resets upon activity over any service connection.
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
RE claim 9, Wu discloses a radio communication system comprising: a first base station, which is a master node using a first radio access technology (RAT) (Figure 2, LTE Transceivers 206 and 256, Paragraph 60 discloses a UE with these transceivers establishes a connection with a master node using one wireless protocol, and a second connection with a secondary node using a second wireless protocol. The first and second protocols may be the same or different. See further Figures 4 and 5.); a second base station, which is a secondary node using a second RAT (Figure 2, 5G NR Transceivers 208 and 258, Paragraph 60 discloses a UE with these transceivers establishes a connection with a master node using one wireless protocol, and a second connection with a secondary node using a second wireless protocol. The first and second protocols may be the same or different. See further Figures 4 and 5.); and a single terminal for performing communications with the first base station and the second base station in dual connectivity (Figure 2, 5G NR Transceivers 208 and 258, Paragraph 60 discloses a UE with these transceivers establishes a connection with a master node using one wireless protocol, and a second connection with a secondary node using a second wireless protocol. The first and second protocols may be the same or different. See further Figures 4 and 5.), wherein the single terminal includes: a transmitter that: performs a first communication with a first base station and performs a second communication with a second base station (Figure 2, LTE Transceivers 206 and 256, Paragraph 60 discloses a UE with these transceivers establishes a connection with a master node using one wireless protocol, and a second connection with a secondary node using a second wireless protocol. The first and second protocols may be the same or different. See further Figures 4 and 5.); a receiver that receives configuration information for a data activity timer (Paragraph 71, “In an implementation, the UE 110 may be configured by an RRC message to enable data inactivity monitoring (e.g., use a dual-data inactivity timer 218) by at least one of the master node 402 or the secondary node 404. For example, the master node 402 may transmit an RRC message (e.g., a Master Node (MN) timer configuration message 515) to the UE 110 to configure the UE 110 to use the dual-data inactivity timer. The MN timer configuration message 515 may include at least one of a timer value (duration) of the dual-data inactivity timer or parameter(s) for the UE 110 to derive a duration of a timer value for the dual-data inactivity timer.”); a first Media Access Control (MAC) entity configured to be associated with the first communication (Paragraph 60 further discloses the UE includes “includes suitable MAC entities (e.g., a first MAC entity for the master cell group, a second MAC entity for the secondary cell group)); a second MAC entity configured to be associated with the second communication (Paragraph 60 further discloses the UE includes “includes suitable MAC entities (e.g., a first MAC entity for the master cell group, a second MAC entity for the secondary cell group)); a single data inactivity timer (Paragraphs 62-74 discloses an embodiment in which the mac entities are controlled by a single “Dual-Data Inactivity Timer”); and a processor that: starts or restarts the single data inactivity timer when data transmission occurs at the first MAC entity associated with the first communication, and starts or restarts the single data inactivity timer when data transmission occurs at the second MAC entity associated with the second communication (Paragraph 69: “the dual-data inactivity timer expires if none of the MAC entities receive or transmit a MAC SDU for an LCH within a time period (e.g., the duration of the dual-data inactivity timer).”), wherein the processor transitions a Radio Resource Control (RRC) state to RRC IDLE upon detection of expiration of the single data inactivity timer (Paragraph 69: “Upon receiving the expiry indication from the lower layers, the UE 110 transitions from a connected mode at a radio resource control layer (e.g., the RRC connected state) to an a idle mode at a radio resource control layer (e.g., the RRC idle state) and the UE 110 initiates an RRC connection release procedure releasing the RRC connections for all nodes (e.g., the master node and the secondary node).”), wherein the single data inactivity timer is not configured for either the first MAC entity or the second MAC entity (Paragraphs 62-74, in view of this disclosure, it is clear the “dual-data inactivity timer” is a timer for the UE itself as it pertains to its multiple connections. The timer is not controlled by a MAC entity individually. It is instead started and restarted by activity from either MAC entity, and when both are inactive for a duration that causes the timer to expire, the UE as a whole transitions to RRC Idle mode), wherein the first base station includes a receiver that performs the first communication with the terminal (Figure 2, 254, 256, 258).
Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the terminal transmits terminal capability information related to a data inactivity monitoring function; a single data inactivity timer that is configured only for the first MAC entity based on the configuration information for the data inactivity timer; wherein the data transmission which may occur at the first MAC entity and/or second MAC entity is of a service data unit.
However, Lee teaches starting or restarting a data inactivity timer according to the transmission of a service data unit (Paragraph 105, arrival or transmission of a MAC service data unit (SDU) by the MAC layer of a UE will cause the UE to start or restart an a configured data inactivity timer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the terminal and method of Wu with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Wu in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the terminal transmits terminal capability information related to a data inactivity monitoring function; and a single data inactivity timer that is configured that is configured only for the first MAC entity based on the configuration information for the data inactivity timer.
However, Bhalla teaches wherein the terminal transmits terminal capability information related to a data inactivity monitoring function (Paragraphs 75-80, inclusive of Table 10, teaches a UE which signals UE capabilities to a network device. This capability includes indication of whether or not the supports a Max PPP Inactivity Timer. This is a timer that monitors the duration of inactivity with respect to reception and transmission of data. Paragraph 81 further teaching as such. The timer is reset upon detection of any traffic over any service connection).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the terminal and method of Wu in view of Lee with the teachings of Bhalla since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement in order to predictably yield a system in which a UE makes its ability to monitor for transmission/reception inactivity known to the network.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Lastly, Wu in view of Lee and further in view of Bhalla discloses the claimed invention except for a single data inactivity timer that is configured that is configured only for the first MAC entity based on the configuration information for the data inactivity timer.
However, at paragraphs 62-74 Wu discloses a single timer, configured by the network via RRC message from the MN or SN, which is started or restarted upon activity on either MAC entity. Paragraphs 75-94 provide for an alternative embodiment in which the MN configures a timer for the first MAC entity and the SN configures the timer for the second MAC entity. These embodiments are not disclosed as competing embodiments. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized from these embodiments that both address the issue of inadvertent idle mode, and Wu’s teachings provide for the predictable variation of a single timer configured for a MAC entity associated with the MN that starts or restarts when activity is detected over either MAC entity. This rationale is further supported by the teachings set forth above from Bhalla at paragraph 81 with Bhalla teaching a single timer, configured by the network, that resets upon activity over any service connection.
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights