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 .
Response to Remarks
This Office Action is considered to be fully responsive to the communications filed on 08/06/2026. Claims 5-8 are currently pending in this Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 3-6, filed 08/06/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 3-5 of Remarks that Arshad does not teach that the master node receives MDT configuration information from a secondary node. Applicant asserts on page 5 of Remarks that “Arshad at most teaches that the master network node 160 receives the first MDT configuration from an Operation, Administration, Management (OAM) node. See id. par. [0232]. However, Arshad fails to teach that the master network node 160 receives the first MDT configuration from a secondary network node”. Examiner however disagrees with this opinion, as Arshad does teach this feature, and a claim mapping has been provided below. Firstly, [0232] of Arshad states “In a particular embodiment, the master network node 160 receives the MDT configuration from an OAM node” (emphasis added). This is simply a single embodiment of the invention, where a multitude of different embodiments and combinations thereof are discussed in Arshad. Narrowing in on this single sentence does not properly consider the Arshad reference in its entirety. Despite this, assuming arguendo that Examiner was using this OAM node as a mapping for the claimed “secondary node”, it does indeed still read on the claim limitation as it is broadly written. The term “secondary node” is simply an example of naming convention. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning of the term, an OAM node is a distinct second type of node from the master network node, which means that the OAM node does read on a “secondary node”. Regardless of this fact, Examiner did not map to the OAM node or paragraph [0232] of Arshad, so this argument is moot. Applicant then goes on to argue on page 5 of Remarks that “Arshad’s disclosure in paragraph [0202] on which the Examiner relies is a statement with respect to FIG. 15 (which shows operation of Wireless Device 110), but not with respect to FIG. 19”. Examiner however disagrees with this opinion. As can be seen in the previous Office Action dated 05/08/2026 as well as down below in the Claim Rejections section, Examiner cites to paragraph [0238] of Arshad which clearly shows apparatus 1500 that may be implemented in network node 160 and states “Apparatus 1500 is operable to carry out the example method described with reference to FIG. 19 and possibly any other processes or methods disclosed herein” (emphasis added). Examiner also cited paragraphs [0200] and [0202] of Arshad which shows that in method 1000 (which is one of the other processes or methods disclosed) the MDT configuration for a secondary cell group is received from a secondary cell. In other words, apparatus 1500 (which is implemented in network node 160) is able to perform both the method of [Fig. 19] and method 1000 to receive the MDT configuration for a secondary cell group from a secondary cell. Thus, Arshad indeed does teach this feature as it is written. Additionally, the statement by Applicant on page 5 of Remarks that “Arshad’s disclosure in paragraph [0202] on which the Examiner relies is a statement with respect to FIG. 15 (which shows operation of Wireless Device 110), but not with respect to FIG. 19” is negated by paragraph [0209] of Arshad. Paragraph [0209] clearly shows that the method described by [Fig. 15] may be performed by apparatus 1100, which may be implemented in a network node (i.e. network node 160 may perform the operation of [Fig. 15] which does indeed receive MDT configuration for the secondary cell group from a secondary node as can be seen in paragraphs [0200] and [0202]). This alone renders this argument moot. For the reasons discussed above, the rejections of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C 103 are maintained. For more details about any of the above mentioned, please see the Claim Rejections section 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.
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.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad et al (US 20220167196 A1), and further in view of Fang et al (US 20210344430 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Arshad teaches
A radio base station comprising ([0227], [Fig. 19], and [Fig. 20] master network node):
a processor that performs dual connectivity with a terminal ([0238], [Fig. 19], and [Fig. 20] apparatus 1500 includes determining unit (processer), and a wireless device (terminal) is determined to support dual connectivity (performs dual connectivity));
a receiver that receives, from another radio base station that performs the dual connectivity, configuration information related to Minimization of Drive Test (MDT) ([0238], and [Fig. 20] apparatus 1500 includes receiving unit and can perform operations in Fig. 19, as well as any other processes or methods disclosed such as method 1000; [0227], and [Fig. 19] MDT configuration for the secondary cell group (configuration information related to MDT) is received by the master network node, where the secondary cell group supports dual connectivity with a wireless device; [0200], and [0202] method 1000 describes receiving a first MDT configuration for a secondary cell group from a first network node, where the first network node is a secondary node (the MDT configuration is sent by the another radio base station, which is a secondary node)); and
wherein the radio base station is a master node and the another base station is a secondary node ([0202] first network node is a secondary node (the another base station); [0227] and [Fig. 19] master network node (the radio base station)).
It should be noted that Arshad does teach the limitation a transmitter that, based on the configuration information, transmits a configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information and that instructs configuration of the MDT to the another radio base station, as Arshad teaches at least one trigger for triggering MDT being sent to a secondary network node. However, for the sake of clarity and compact prosecution, Fang is introduced below to teach this feature.
Fang teaches a transmitter that, based on the configuration information, transmits a configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information and that instructs configuration of the MDT to the another radio base station ([0111] base stations include transmitter; [0035] the UE allowed MDT information and/or the UE MDT PLMN list information (configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information and instructs configuration of the MDT) is sent via direct interface message between the MN and the SN such as a SGNB ADDITION REQUEST/S-NODE ADDITION REQUEST sent by the master node MN to the secondary node SN (sent to the another radio base station)),
Arshad and Fang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring MDT. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arshad to include the teachings of Fang where the MN sends a SGNB ADDITION REQUEST to the SN. The rationale behind this would be to reduce power consumption of user equipment ([0004] Fang).
Regarding claim 6, Arshad teaches
A radio communication method of a radio base station comprising the steps of ([0227] and [Fig. 19] method by master network node):
performing dual connectivity with a terminal ([0227] and [Fig. 19] a wireless device (terminal) is determined to support dual connectivity (performs dual connectivity) with master network node);
receiving, from another radio base station that performs the dual connectivity, configuration information related to Minimization of Drive Test (MDT) ([0238], and [Fig. 20] apparatus 1500 can perform operations in Fig. 19, as well as any other processes or methods disclosed such as method 1000; [0227], and [Fig. 19] MDT configuration for the secondary cell group (configuration information related to MDT) is received by the master network node, where the secondary cell group supports dual connectivity with a wireless device; [0200], and [0202] method 1000 describes receiving a first MDT configuration for a secondary cell group from a first network node, where the first network node is a secondary node (the MDT configuration is sent by the another radio base station, which is a secondary node)); and
wherein the radio base station is a master node and the another base station is a secondary node ([0202] first network node is a secondary node (the another base station); [0227] and [Fig. 19] master network node (the radio base station)).
It should be noted that Arshad does teach the limitation transmitting, based on the configuration information, a configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information and that instructs configuration of the MDT to the another radio base station, as Arshad teaches at least one trigger for triggering MDT being sent to a secondary network node. However, for the sake of clarity and compact prosecution, Fang is introduced below to teach this feature.
Fang teaches transmitting, based on the configuration information, a configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information and that instructs configuration of the MDT to the another radio base station ([0035] the UE allowed MDT information and/or the UE MDT PLMN list information (configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information and instructs configuration of the MDT) is sent via direct interface message between the MN and the SN such as a SGNB ADDITION REQUEST/S-NODE ADDITION REQUEST sent by the master node MN to the secondary node SN (sent to the another radio base station)),
Arshad and Fang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring MDT. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arshad to include the teachings of Fang where the MN sends a SGNB ADDITION REQUEST to the SN. The rationale behind this would be to reduce power consumption of user equipment ([0004] Fang).
Regarding claim 7, Arshad modified by Fang teaches The radio base station according to claim 5, as is described above.
Arshad does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information received from the another radio base station is a secondary node Addition Request message.
However, Fang does teach wherein the configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information received from the another radio base station is a secondary node Addition Request message ([0035] the UE allowed MDT information and/or the UE MDT PLMN list information (configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information) is sent via direct interface message between the MN and the SN such as a SGNB ADDITION REQUEST/S-NODE ADDITION REQUEST sent by the master node MN to the secondary node SN).
Arshad and Fang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring MDT. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arshad to include the teachings of Fang where the MN sends a SGNB ADDITION REQUEST/S-NODE ADDITION REQUEST to the SN. The rationale behind this would be to reduce power consumption of user equipment ([0004] Fang).
Regarding claim 8, Arshad modified by Fang teaches The radio communication method according to claim 6, as is described above.
Arshad does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information received from the another radio base station is a secondary node Addition Request message.
However, Fang does teach wherein the configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information received from the another radio base station is a secondary node Addition Request message ([0035] the UE allowed MDT information and/or the UE MDT PLMN list information (configuration instruction information that is different from the configuration information) is sent via direct interface message between the MN and the SN such as a SGNB ADDITION REQUEST/S-NODE ADDITION REQUEST sent by the master node MN to the secondary node SN).
Arshad and Fang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring MDT. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arshad to include the teachings of Fang where the MN sends a SGNB ADDITION REQUEST/S-NODE ADDITION REQUEST to the SN. The rationale behind this would be to reduce power consumption of user equipment ([0004] Fang).
Conclusion
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 ADAM JOEL CERLANEK whose telephone number is (703)756-1272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/A.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2478 /JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
