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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in pages 7-14, the applicant asserts that “the cited references, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose, teach or suggest all limitations of claim 1, and cannot achieve the above advantages, and therefore, claim 1 defines over the cited art and is allowable. Independent claims 7 and 13 include similar features, and is allowable for at least similar reasons, as claim 1.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
“During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." MPEP § 2111.01 (I) (citing to In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." MPEP 2111.01 (11) citing to Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sending first information to request to release a secondary cell group (SCG) to a primary secondary cell (PScell) of the SCG in a dual-connectivity scenario”, sending first information to a PScell of the SCG in dual connectivity. As indicated by ZHANG in par. 139, 161, 162, “When the UE detects that a failure occurs on the radio link established between the UE and the second network device, the UE sends a first message to the first network device, where the first message is used for indicating that a failure occurs on the radio link established between the UE and the second network device…The first network device sends a third message to the second network device according to the first message, where the third message is used for instructing the second network device to release a resource used for serving the UE… if the first message does not carry the link failure related identifier, an identifier of the UE is determined as a second release identifier; or if the first message carries the link failure related identifier, a second release identifier is determined according to the link failure related identifier, and the third message is sent to the second network device, where the third message carries the second release identifier”, the second release identifier being received by the first network device and relay to the second network device or the primary secondary cell (PScell) of the SCG to release resource used for serving the UE in the second network device. Therefore, ZHANG discloses “sending first information to request to release a secondary cell group (SCG) to a primary secondary cell (PScell) of the SCG in a dual-connectivity scenario” and the claims.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 7. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “applied to a network device of the PScell of the SCG” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZANG et al. (US 20160338136).
Regarding claims 1, 13, ZANG et al. (US 20160338136) teaches a processing method, applied to a terminal (par. 139, UE), comprising:
sending first information to request to release a secondary cell group (SCG) to a primary secondary cell (PScell) of the SCG (par. 85, 139, 149, 151, 165, the UE sends a first message to the first network device…the first message does not carry the link failure related identifier…an identifier of a cell included in the SCG, an identifier of a primary cell included in the SCG, or an identifier of a bearer served by the SCG as a first release identifier; par. 3, 184, The multiple cells of the master base station that establish the radio links to the UE belong to a master cell group (MCG), and the multiple cells of each secondary base station that establish the radio links to the UE belong to one secondary cell group (SCG). That is, the UE may establish radio links to one MCG and multiple SCGs synchronously…The first network device in the foregoing refers to a master base station, and the second network device refers to a secondary base station; par. 161, 162, The first network device sends a third message to the second network device according to the first message, where the third message is used for instructing the second network device to release a resource used for serving the UE…if the first message does not carry the link failure related identifier, an identifier of the UE is determined as a second release identifier; or if the first message carries the link failure related identifier, a second release identifier is determined according to the link failure related identifier, and the third message is sent to the second network device, where the third message carries the second release identifier),
wherein the SCG comprises a Scell and PScell (par. 155, Each SCG includes one primary cell, and each SCG may include no secondary cell or include one or more secondary cells);
receiving second information from a primary cell (Pcell) of a master cell group (MCG) or the PScell of the SCG (par. 149, 165, 174); and releasing all cells of the SCG according to the second information (par. 149, 165, 174, The UE receives the second message sent by the first network device, where the second message is used for instructing the UE to release a cell, a secondary cell group (SCG), a timing advance group (TAG) or a bearer; and releases a cell, an SCG, a TAG or a bearer according to the second message).
Regarding claim 7, ZANG et al. (US 20160338136) teaches a processing method, applied to a network device of the PScell of the SCG (fig. 2, 5, 8, first network device, second network device), comprising:
receiving first information from a terminal in a dual-connectivity scenario (par. 3, 96, user equipment (UE) may establish radio links to one master base station and one or more secondary base stations synchronously), wherein the first information is used to request to release all cells of the SCG (par. 85, 139, 149, 151, 165, the UE sends a first message to the first network device…the first message does not carry the link failure related identifier…an identifier of a cell included in the SCG, an identifier of a primary cell included in the SCG, or an identifier of a bearer served by the SCG as a first release identifier; par. 3, 184, The multiple cells of the master base station that establish the radio links to the UE belong to a master cell group (MCG), and the multiple cells of each secondary base station that establish the radio links to the UE belong to one secondary cell group (SCG). That is, the UE may establish radio links to one MCG and multiple SCGs synchronously…The first network device in the foregoing refers to a master base station, and the second network device refers to a secondary base station), the SCG comprises a Scell and a PScell (par. 155, Each SCG includes one primary cell, and each SCG may include no secondary cell or include one or more secondary cells); and
sending second information to the terminal, wherein the second information indicates the terminal to release all cells of the SCG (par. 149, 165, 174, The UE receives the second message sent by the first network device, where the second message is used for instructing the UE to release a cell, a secondary cell group (SCG), a timing advance group (TAG) or a bearer; and releases a cell, an SCG, a TAG or a bearer according to the second message).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZANG et al. (US 20160338136) in view of LEE et al. (US 20200113012).
Regarding claims 2, 14, ZANG does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein after releasing all cells of the SCG according to the second information, the method further comprises: sending third information to the Pcell of the MCG, wherein the third information indicates information that all cells of the SCG have been released.
But, LEE et al. (US 20200113012) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein after releasing all cells of the SCG according to the second information, the method further comprises: sending third information to the Pcell of the MCG (par. 159), wherein the third information indicates information that all cells of the SCG have been released (par. 159, after receiving an RRC connection reconfiguration message that releases SCG, the UE performs release of SCG SRB and transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration complete message to MCG. Although the MCG receives the RRC connection reconfiguration complete message from the UE, the MCG may confirm completion of SCG release again from the SCG).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by LEE in the system of ZANG to confirm the release.
The motivation would have been to confirm and provide reliable transmission and processing.
Regarding claim 5, 17, ZANG does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information; or the second information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE).
But, LEE in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first information; or the second information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE) (par. 134, 195, 198, RRC signaling).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by LEE in the system of ZANG to implementing the RRC message.
The motivation would have been to improve throughput of a UE according to the tight interworking of LTE/NR may be used, and signaling for UE mobility may be simplified.
Regarding claim 8, ZANG does not teach the method according to claim 7, wherein after sending the second information to the terminal, the method further comprises: receiving third information from the terminal, wherein the third information indicates information that all cells of the SCG have been released.
But, LEE et al. (US 20200113012) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein after sending the second information to the terminal, the method further comprises: receiving third information from the terminal, wherein the third information indicates information that all cells of the SCG have been released (par. 159, after receiving an RRC connection reconfiguration message that releases SCG, the UE performs release of SCG SRB and transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration complete message to MCG. Although the MCG receives the RRC connection reconfiguration complete message from the UE, the MCG may confirm completion of SCG release again from the SCG).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by LEE in the system of ZANG to confirm the release.
The motivation would have been to confirm and provide reliable transmission and processing.
Regarding claim 11, ZANG does not teach the method according claim 7, wherein the first information or the second information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE).
But, LEE et al. (US 20200113012) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first information or the second information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE) (par. 134, 195, 198, RRC signaling).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by LEE in the system of ZANG to implementing the RRC message.
The motivation would have been to improve throughput of a UE according to the tight interworking of LTE/NR may be used, and signaling for UE mobility may be simplified.
Regarding claim 19, ZANG does not teach the terminal according to claim 2, wherein the third information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE).
But, LEE et al. (US 20200113012) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the third information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE) (par. 159, 195, 198, RRC signaling).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by LEE in the system of ZANG to implementing the RRC message.
The motivation would have been to improve throughput of a UE according to the tight interworking of LTE/NR may be used, and signaling for UE mobility may be simplified.
Regarding claim 21, ZANG does not teach the terminal according to claim 8, wherein the third information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE).
But, LEE et al. (US 20200113012) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the third information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE) (par. 159, 195, 198, RRC signaling).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by LEE in the system of ZANG to implementing the RRC message.
The motivation would have been to improve throughput of a UE according to the tight interworking of LTE/NR may be used, and signaling for UE mobility may be simplified.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZANG et al. (US 20160338136) and LEE et al. (US 20200113012) as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of XU et al. (US 20200128479).
Regarding claim 3, 15, ZANG and LEE do not teach the method according to claim 1,
wherein the first information is further used to request to change the maximum number of multi- input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG or request to change the maximum number of antenna ports, the method further comprises:
changing the maximum number of the multi-input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG or changing the maximum number of the antenna ports according to the second information;
sending fourth information to the Pcell of the MCG, wherein the fourth information indicates information of changed maximum number of uplink or downlink multi-input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG, or changed maximum number of the antenna ports.
But, XU et al. (US 20200128479) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first information is further used to request to change the maximum number of multi- input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG or request to change the maximum number of antenna ports (par. 77, 78, par. 156-160, 162, reduce or increase the maximum quantity of downlink MIMO layers and/or the maximum quantity of uplink MIMO layers), the method further comprises:
changing the maximum number of the multi-input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG or changing the maximum number of the antenna ports according to the second information (par. 152, 162, 164, If a decision result of the base station is to reduce the maximum quantity of downlink MIMO layers and the maximum quantity of uplink MIMO layers of the UE, the base station reconfigures the maximum quantity of downlink MIMO layers and/or the maximum quantity of uplink MIMO layers for the UE by using an RRC connection reconfiguration process);
sending fourth information to the Pcell of the MCG, wherein the fourth information indicates information of changed maximum number of uplink or downlink multi-input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG, or changed maximum number of the antenna ports (par. 76, 77, 78, par. 156-160, 162, after the terminal reports a maximum quantity of supported MIMO layers…reduce or increase the maximum quantity of downlink MIMO layers and/or the maximum quantity of uplink MIMO layers).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by XU in the system of ZANG and LEE to configure MIMO for communication.
The motivation would have been to provide optimize the throughput and capacity of the channel and thus improving transmission quality.
Regarding claim 9, ZANG and LEE do not teach the method according to claim 7, wherein the first information is further used to request to change the maximum number of multi-input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG or request to change the maximum number of antenna ports;
the second information indicates the terminal to change the maximum number of the multi-input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG or the maximum number of the antenna ports;
after sending the second information to the terminal, the method further comprises:
receiving fourth information from the terminal, wherein the fourth information indicates information of changed maximum number of uplink or downlink multi-input multi- output layers of the cell of the MCG or changed maximum number of antenna ports.
But, XU et al. (US 20200128479) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first information is further used to request to change the maximum number of multi-input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG or request to change the maximum number of antenna ports (par. 77, 78, par. 156-160, 162, reduce or increase the maximum quantity of downlink MIMO layers and/or the maximum quantity of uplink MIMO layers);
the second information indicates the terminal to change the maximum number of the multi-input multi-output layers of the cell of the MCG or the maximum number of the antenna ports (par. 152, 162, 164, If a decision result of the base station is to reduce the maximum quantity of downlink MIMO layers and the maximum quantity of uplink MIMO layers of the UE, the base station reconfigures the maximum quantity of downlink MIMO layers and/or the maximum quantity of uplink MIMO layers for the UE by using an RRC connection reconfiguration process);
after sending the second information to the terminal, the method further comprises: receiving fourth information from the terminal, wherein the fourth information indicates information of changed maximum number of uplink or downlink multi-input multi- output layers of the cell of the MCG or changed maximum number of antenna ports (par. 76, 77, 78, par. 156-160, 162, after the terminal reports a maximum quantity of supported MIMO layers…reduce or increase the maximum quantity of downlink MIMO layers and/or the maximum quantity of uplink MIMO layers).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by XU in the system of ZANG and LEE to configure MIMO for communication.
The motivation would have been to provide optimize the throughput and capacity of the channel and thus improving transmission quality.
Regarding claim 20, XU et al. (US 20200128479) teaches the terminal according to claim 3, wherein the fourth information is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE) (par. 152, an RRC layer of the UE triggers a message reporting process).
Claim(s) 4, 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZANG et al. (US 20160338136) and LEE et al. (US 20200113012) as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of SHARMA et al. (US 20220132615 with foreign app. (EP) 19152906.4 filed on 01/21/2019).
Regarding claims 4, 16, LEE et al. (US 20200113012) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is further used to configure the cell of the MCG (par. 115, MCG configuration to be used as a base for reconfiguration by SeNB; par. 134, The one SRB type may be any one of the MCG SRB, SCG SRB, split SRB, MCG transmission of split SRB, and SCG transmission of split SRB. If the first message includes information about the type of an SRB);
the cell of the SCG comprises one or more of the following: all cells of the SCG, part of cells of the SCG, cells configured by all frequencies of the SCG, and cells configured by part of frequencies of the SCG (par. 195, all the SCG configurations).
However, ZANG and LEE do not teach wherein the first information is further used to release, add or change the cell of the MCG, the cell of the MCG comprises one or more of the following:
all cells of the MCG, part of cells of the MCG, cells configured by all frequencies of the MCG, and cells configured by part of frequencies of the MCG;
But, SHARMA et al. (US 20220132615) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first information is further used to release, add or change the cell of the MCG (par. 60, 61), the cell of the MCG comprises one or more of the following:
all cells of the MCG, part of cells of the MCG, cells configured by all frequencies of the MCG, and cells configured by part of frequencies of the MCG (par. 61, all MCG SCell; par. 79);
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by SHARMA in the system of ZANG and LEE to release, add or change the cell of MCG for communication.
The motivation would have been to provide support transmissions with increased reliability and help optimize the operation of wireless telecommunications systems.
Regarding claim 10, LEE et al. (US 20200113012) teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the first information is further used to configure the cell of the MCG (par. 115, MCG configuration to be used as a base for reconfiguration by SeNB; par. 134, The one SRB type may be any one of the MCG SRB, SCG SRB, split SRB, MCG transmission of split SRB, and SCG transmission of split SRB. If the first message includes information about the type of an SRB); and
the cell of the SCG comprises one or more of the following: all cells of the SCG, part of cells of the SCG, cells configured by all frequencies of the SCG, and cells configured by part of frequencies of the SCG (par. 195, all the SCG configurations).
However, ZANG and LEE do not teach wherein the first information is further used to release, add or change the cell of the MCG, the cell of the MCG comprises one or more of the following:
all cells of the MCG, part of cells of the MCG, cells configured by all frequencies of the MCG, and cells configured by part of frequencies of the MCG;
But, SHARMA et al. (US 20220132615) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first information is further used to release, add or change the cell of the MCG (par. 60, 61), the cell of the MCG comprises one or more of the following:
all cells of the MCG, part of cells of the MCG, cells configured by all frequencies of the MCG, and cells configured by part of frequencies of the MCG (par. 61, all MCG SCell; par. 79);
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by SHARMA in the system of ZANG and LEE to release, add or change the cell of MCG for communication.
The motivation would have been to provide support transmissions with increased reliability and help optimize the operation of wireless telecommunications systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
XU et al. (US 20220104052) teaches in the assistance information may be a maximum quantity of MIMO layers, of a serving cell of an SCG, that the terminal device prefers to be configured by an SN, or may be a maximum quantity of MIMO layers, of a serving cell of an MCG (par. 124).
YILMAZ et al. (US 20220132607) teaches The SN initiated SN modification procedure without MN involvement is used to modify the configuration within SN in case no coordination with MN is required, including the addition/modification/release of SCG Scell and PSCell change when MN involvement is not needed for this (par. 125).
3GPP TS 37.340 teaches The MN may not use the procedure to initiate the addition, modification or release of SCG SCells (page 26).
CHANG et al. (US 20170013668) teaches configured to release a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) portion corresponding to a split bearer; or, release or deactivate corresponding SCG when all bearers associated with an SCG are released (par. 31).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THINH D TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3934. The examiner can normally be reached mon-fri 9-6.
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, FARUK HAMZA can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/THINH D TRAN/for /Thinh Tran/, Patent Examiner of Art Unit 2466 03/10/2026