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 Amendment
The amendment made dated 6/17/2026 does not contain any new matter, and has been accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12, 17 and 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.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the newly added limitations within the independent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to cite that the newly amended limitations are newly rejected with the incorporation of the Rahman et al. (2017/0223763) reference, as shown below.
Therefore, due to the broadness of the claim language, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance and are still rejected as shown below.
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.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #107bis, dated 9/14/2019; hereinafter ZTE Corp) in view of NPL (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #106, dated 5/13/2019; hereinafter CATT) in further view of Rahman et al. (US 2017/0223763; hereinafter Rahman).
Regarding claims 12, 17 and 21, ZTE Corp discloses a status transition method, comprising:
sending, by a terminal device, a notification message to a master node if the terminal device determines that there are uplink data to be sent to a secondary node and when a secondary cell group (SCG) is in an inactive state or a dormancy state, wherein the the notification message is used for informing the master node to trigger the SCG to enter a non-dormancy state or an active state (Pages 3-4, section 2.1 option 1: issue 1: how to activate PSCell from dormancy with alternative 1: activate PSCell via Master Cell Group using MAC CE or RRC signaling; issue 2: can also be done upon UL data arrival);
ZTE Corp discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitations of,
receiving, by the terminal, another notification message from the master node, wherein the received notification message is used for informing the terminal device that the SCG enters the non-dormancy state or the active state.
However, CATT does disclose the limitation of receiving a second notification message from the master node, wherein the second notification message is used for informing the terminal device that the SCG enters the non-dormancy state or the active state (Fig. 2: wherein the SN sends a data transmission indication to MN triggering the MN to decide to go to SCG active state, and sending SCG active state indication to the SN;
PNG
media_image1.png
472
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate CATT’s disclosure to reestablish connection for data transmission and communication.
ZTE Corp in view of CATT discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of wherein
the received notification message is further used for informing the terminal device whether to change a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell).
However, Rahman does disclose said limitation of wherein
the received notification message is further used for in forming the terminal device whether to change a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell) (Fig. 7; [0075], [0077]-[0081]: wherein the SeNB informs MeNB whether PSCell is activated or not activated and then the MeNB sends new PSCell activation command to the UE to activate a new PSCell if needed).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Rahman’s disclosure to avoid UE performance degradation (Rahman [0075]).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, ZTE Corp discloses wherein, the third notification message is carried by a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling or a Media Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) on a master node side (Pages 3-4, section 2.1 option 1: issue 1: how to activate PSCell from dormancy with alternative 1: activate PSCell via Master Cell Group using MAC CE or RRC signaling).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, ZTE Corp discloses wherein, the third notification message contains N bearer identifiers, wherein N is an integer greater than or equal to 0, and the bearer identifier is used for indicating a Data Radio Bearer (DRB) identifier of a bearer on which there is uplink data sending (Pages 3-4, section 2.1 option 1: issue 1: how to activate PSCell from dormancy with alternative 1: activate PSCell via Master Cell Group using MAC CE or RRC signaling; issue 2: can also be done upon UL data arrival).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, ZTE Corp discloses wherein determining, by the terminal device, that there are uplink data to be sent to the secondary node, comprises:
determining, by the terminal device, that there are uplink data to be transmitted on an SCG bearer (Pages 3-4, section 2.1 option 1: issue 1: how to activate PSCell from dormancy with alternative 1: activate PSCell via Master Cell Group using MAC CE or RRC signaling; issue 2: can also be done upon UL data arrival).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in view of CATT as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2018/0227805; hereinafter Jang).
Regarding claim 22, ZTE in view of CATT discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the method according to claim 21, wherein the second notification message is further used for informing the terminal device whether to change a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell).
However, Jang does disclose the limitation of wherein the second notification message is further used for informing the terminal device whether to change a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell) ([0168]: a change in PSCell is notified and explicitly indicated).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time if invention to incorporate Jang’s disclosure to provide effective handover.
Regarding claim 23, ZTE in view of CATT discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the method according to claim 22, wherein when there is a change of the PSCell of the terminal device, the second notification message further carries identification information of the changed PSCell.
However, Jang does disclose the limitation of wherein when there is a change of the PSCell of the terminal device, the second notification message further carries identification information of the changed PSCell ([0168]: a change in PSCell is notified and explicitly indicated).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time if invention to incorporate Jang’s disclosure to provide effective handover.
Conclusion
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 CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
