DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for reconsideration filed 2 July 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-18, 20-22, 24-35, 37-39, 41-52, 54-56, and 58-76 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, 15, 18, 25, 27-28, 32, 35, 42, 44-45, 49, 52, 59, 61-62, 66, 69, 71, 73, and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2018/0192300) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0358847).
For Claims 1, 18, 35, and 52, Kazmi teaches a method, a wireless device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions, and a system comprising: a wireless device; a base station, and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (see paragraph 52-54, 189-191); the method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device and from a base station, one or more RRC messages comprising one or more values (see paragraph 126, also paragraphs 13, 81, and 98: RRC message with configuration, RRC message with activation command);
receiving, by a wireless device, one or more media access control (MAC) control elements (CEs) comprising one or more commands to activate (see paragraph 126, 88, 91, 101):
a first cell that is in a deactivated state and that is configured to operate in a first frequency band (see paragraphs 125-126); and
a second cell that is in a deactivated state and that is configured to operate in a second frequency band (see paragraphs 125-126); and
based on the receiving the one or more MAC CEs:
applying, for the first cell and no later than a first activation delay after being commanded to activate the first cell, one or more first actions associated with activation of the first cell (see paragraphs 128-129, 101, 103; for activation delay, see paragraphs 56, 120-123, 132-135); and
applying, for the second cell and no later than a second activation delay after being commanded to activate the second cell, one or more second actions associated with activation of the second cell (see paragraphs 128, 130; for activation delay, see paragraphs 56, 120-123, 132-135),
wherein the first activation delay is different from the second activation delay (see paragraphs 128, 131).
Kazmi as applied above is not explicit as to, but Takahashi teaches one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising timing information (see paragraphs 372, 397, 163: RRC message indicating periodicity and timing offset); and an activation delay having a duration based on the timing information received from the base station (see paragraphs 348-349, 372-373: offset used in calculation at UE).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the base station signal the timing information as in Takahashi when implementing the method of Kazmi. The motivation would be to ensure the wireless device can determine the optimal activation delay.
For Claims 8, 25, 42, and 59, Kazmi teaches the method, wherein at least one of the first activation delay or the second activation delay comprises a subframe (see paragraph 139).
For Claims 10, 27, 44, and 61, Kazmi teaches the method, wherein: the first cell is an unlicensed cell and the first frequency band is an unlicensed frequency band (see paragraphs 12-129); and
the second cell is a licensed cell and the second frequency band is a licensed frequency band (see paragraphs 128, 130).
For Claims 11, 28, 45, and 62, Kazmi teaches the method, wherein the one or more MAC CEs comprises a single command to activate both the first cell and the second cell (see paragraph 131: command to active at least one).
For Claims 15, 32, 49, and 66, Kazmi teaches the method, wherein: the first cell is a first secondary cell (SCell); and the second cell is a second SCell (see paragraph 132).
For Claims 69, 71, 73, and 75, Kazmi as modified by Takahashi above further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the instructions, when executed, configure the wireless device to receive the one or more RRC messages before receiving the one or more MAC CEs (paragraphs 13, 81, and 98: RRC message with configuration, configuration is followed by activation).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 14, 20, 22, 31, 37, 39, 48, and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2018/0192300) and Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0358847) as applied to claims 1, 18, 35, and 52 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0181453).
For Claims 3, 20, 37, and 54, Kazmi teaches the method, wherein: the one or more first actions comprise starting, after the first activation delay after being commanded to activate the first cell, transmission of channel state information (CSI) for the first cell (see paragraph 137); and
the one or more second actions comprise starting, after the second activation delay after being commanded to activate the second cell, transmission of CSI for the second cell (see paragraph 159).
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Chen teaches the one or more first actions comprise starting, before an end of the first delay after being commanded to activate the first cell, transmission of channel state information (CSI) for the first cell (see paragraphs 10, 41, 70, 73: licensed and unlicensed cells, fast CSI report); and
the one or more second actions comprise starting, before an end of the second delay after being commanded to activate the second cell, transmission of CSI for the second cell (see paragraphs 10, 41, 70, 73: licensed and unlicensed cells, fast CSI report).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to manage reporting as in Chen when implementing the method of Kazmi. The motivation would be to ensure reports are made in a timely manner.
For Claims 5, 22, 39, and 56, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Chen teaches the method, wherein the first activation delay is shorter than the second activation delay (see paragraphs 10, 41, 70, 73: reporting can be configured to start immediately).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to manage reporting as in Chen when implementing the method of Ryoo. The motivation would be to ensure reports are made in a timely manner.
For Claims 14, 31, 48, and 65, Kazmi teaches the method, wherein: the receiving the one or more MAC CEs comprises receiving, during a transmission time interval (TTI), the one or more MAC CEs (see paragraph 126, 22: time frames include TTIs);
the applying the one or more first actions comprises applying, after the first activation delay after the TTI, the one or more first actions (see paragraph 137); and
the applying the one or more second actions comprises applying, the second activation delay after the TTI, the one or more second actions (see paragraph 159).
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Chen teaches the applying the one or more first actions comprises applying, before an end of the first delay after the TTI, the one or more first actions (see paragraphs 10, 41, 70, 73: licensed and unlicensed cells, fast CSI report); and
the applying the one or more second actions comprises applying, before an end of the second delay after the TTI, the one or more second actions (see paragraphs 10, 41, 70, 73: licensed and unlicensed cells, fast CSI report).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to manage reporting as in Chen when implementing the method of Kazmi. The motivation would be to ensure reports are made in a timely manner.
Claim(s) 4, 21, 38, and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2018/0192300) and Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0358847) as applied to claims 1, 18, 35, and 52 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2017/0041059).
For Claims 4, 21, 38, and 55, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Yi teaches the method, wherein: the one or more first actions comprise starting, before an end of the first activation delay after being commanded to activate the first cell and before channel state information (CSI) is available for the first cell, transmission of out of range (OOR) CSI for the first cell (see paragraph 59: it is known to use OOR reports in such a case); and
the one or more second actions comprise starting, before an end of the second activation delay after being commanded to activate the second cell and before CSI is available for the second cell, transmission of OOR CSI for the second cell (see paragraph 59: it is known to use OOR reports in such a case).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use OOR reports as in Yi when implementing the method of Kazmi. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using known messaging to handle a known situation.
Claim(s) 7, 24, 41, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2018/0192300) and Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0358847) as applied to claims 1, 18, 35, and 52 above, and further in view of Tomeba et al. (US 2017/0055263).
For Claims 7, 24, 41, and 58, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Tomeba teaches the method, wherein at least one of the one or more first actions or the one or more second actions comprise monitoring a physical downlink control channel (see paragraphs 52, 66, 81, 85).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to monitor PDCCH as in Tomeba when assessing channels as in Kazmi. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of managing communications on the activated cells.
Claim(s) 9, 26, 43, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2018/0192300) and Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0358847) as applied to claims 1, 18, 35, and 52 above, and further in view of over Ryoo et al. (US 2017/0311206).
For Claims 9, 26, 43, and 60, though Kazmi does teach a UE indicating capabilities (see paragraph 145), the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Ryoo teaches the method, further comprising transmitting an indication that the wireless device supports configuration of at least one of: the first cell; or the second cell (see paragraph 73).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to indicate configuration support as in Ryoo when implementing the method of Kazmi. The motivation would be to ensure that the base station understands how to operate with the wireless device.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 16, 29-30, 33, 46-47, 50, 63-64, and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2018/0192300) and Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0358847) as applied to claims 1, 18, 35, and 52 above, and further in view of Pelletier et al. (US 2011/0134774).
For Claims 12, 29, 46, and 63, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Pelletier teaches the method, wherein the one or more MAC CEs comprises: a first command to activate the first cell; and a second command to activate the second cell (see paragraphs 63, 74: sequential activation).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to activate cells as in Pelletier when implementing the method of Kazmi. The motivation would be to provide for separate activation for individual cells as needed.
For Claims 13, 30, 47, and 64, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Pelletier teaches the method, wherein the applying the one or more second actions is performed after the applying the one or more first actions (see paragraphs 63, 74: sequential activation).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to activate cells as in Pelletier when implementing the method of Kazmi. The motivation would be to provide for separate activation for individual cells as needed.
For Claims 16, 33, 50, and 67, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Pelletier teaches the method, wherein:
the applying the one or more first actions comprises initiating channel monitoring on the first cell (see paragraphs 121-123); and
the applying the one or more second actions comprises initiating channel monitoring on the second cell (see paragraphs 121-124).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to perform channel monitoring as in Pelletier when implementing the method of Kazmi. The motivation would be to acquire scheduling information.
Claim(s) 17, 34, 51, and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2018/0192300) and Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0358847) as applied to claims 1, 18, 35, and 52 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2013/0114398).
For Claims 17, 34, 51, and 68, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Wang teaches the method, wherein at least one of the one or more first actions or the one or more second actions comprises one or more of: transmitting a discovery signal; starting an activation timer; or starting or restarting a deactivation timer (see paragraphs 7 and 33-35).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the timers as in Wang when managing cells as in Kazmi. The motivation would be to maintain appropriate timing relationships among cells while avoiding collisions with transmissions from other UEs.
Claim(s) 70, 72, 74, and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2018/0192300) and Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0358847) as applied to claims 1, 18, 35, and 52 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0236825).
For Claims 70, 72, 74, and 76, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but in a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches the method, wherein the duration of an activation delay has a duration that is preconfigured (see paragraphs 105, 111: activation of an SCell performed at a preconfigured number of subframes after the activation indication is received, the duration may be predetermined, established via signaling).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ the known duration as in Park when determining the timing of the delay in Kazmi and Takahashi. The motivation would be to allow the network to control the timing.
Response to Arguments
The submission of 2 July 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
With regards to Takahashi, please note that the timing information in the RRC messages does provided a basis for the activation delay as required by the claim (“a first duration based on the timing information”). The timing information provided in Takahashi will necessarily act as a limit to the duration of the activation delay because the action associated with the activation of the cell must occur within the constraints of the timing information provided.
As regards the combination of references, the information in Takahashi, if available to the device of Kazmi would allow for the appropriate determination of the delay within the constraints. The device can make a better calculation. Thus the modification would not defeat the purpose of the method of Kazmi, but instead allow for the improvement of it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi et al. (US 2003/0002472) and Aoyama (US 2010/0254320) teach systems in which an RRC message may include activation time information. Dalsgaard et al. (US 2012/0327910) teaches including timing information for a component carrier activation in an RRC message.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 8/11/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights