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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
This Office Action is considered to be fully responsive to the communications filed on 04/03/2026. Claims 5-8 are currently pending in this Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-10, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) rejections made in view of Arshad et al (US 20220167196 A1) and Fang et al (US 20210344430 A1) for claims 5-8. Applicant argues on pages 5-10 of Remarks that Arshad does not teach the “another radio base station” receiving a “configuration instruction information” from “a radio base station”. While Examiner disagrees with this opinion as was described in the previous action, these arguments are moot because Fang does teach this feature, and a claim mapping has been provided below. Applicant also argues on pages 10-11 of Remarks that Arshad does not disclose the features of newly added claims 7-8. These arguments are also moot, as Fang does teach these features, and a claim mapping has been provided below. For more details, 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
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
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights