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 .
This office action is in response to application filed 02/12/2026.
Claims 24-26, 28-37, 39-43 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 24 and 35 are amended. Claim 27 and 38 are cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 24-26, 28-31, 35-37, 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Palat et al. (US-20190045568-A1, hereinafter “Palat”) in view of Kung et al. (US-20210218458-A1, hereinafter “Kung”), in view of Zhou et al. (US 20210243763 A1, hereinafter “Zhou”), in view of Wu (US 20220070788 A1, hereinafter “Wu”).
RE Claims 35, 24, Palat disclose a terminal or method:
A terminal device (¶¶0097-0098, Fig. 2) comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (¶¶0097-0098, Fig. 2); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (¶¶0097-0098, Fig. 2) to:
receive, from a master node, a first indication to deactivate a cell group associated with a secondary node (RRC connection information includes SRB3 release flag, an indication to deactivate, and secondary cell group change/release information. Master node, MeNB, generates the SRB3 release flag and inserts into the RRC connection reconfiguration information communicated to the UE from the master node. ¶0164, Fig. 11:1106, 1114); trigger, upon reception of the first indication (Master node, MeNB, generates the SRB3 release flag and inserts into the RRC connection reconfiguration information, a trigger/flag, communicated to the UE from the master node. ¶0164, Fig. 11:1106, 1114) , a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of a signaling radio bearer 3 (SRB3) (UE releases PDCP entity of SRB3. ¶0165, Fig. 11:1116) between the secondary node and the terminal device to perform service data unit (SDU) discard (UE clears the PDCP SDU buffer. ¶0165, Fig. 11; 1118) in a deactivation procedure (eNB sends RRC message with information for SRB release flag, a deactivation. ¶0164, Fig. 11; UE releases PDCP entity of SRB3 and clears PDCP SDU buffer, deactivation of SRB3. ¶0165, Fig. 11);
Palat does not explicitly disclose:
stopping an ongoing Random Access procedure in a case where the terminal device performs a reset of a media access control (MAC) for the cell group in the deactivation procedure.
However, Kung discloses:
stopping an ongoing Random Access procedure in a case where the terminal device performs a reset of a media access control (MAC) for the cell group in the deactivation procedure (MAC entity configured with one or more SCells which the network may activate or deactivate. ¶0154; SCell is deactivated and ongoing Random Access procedure on the SCell, if any, is aborted. ¶0194. MAC reset requested by upper layers, MAC entity shall stop any ongoing RACH procedures. ¶¶0196, 0201.); and
However, Palat and Kung do not explicitly disclose:
transmitting failure information in a case where the terminal device receives a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message to activate the cell group, (CLAIM 33 master requests activate
wherein the RRC Reconfiguration message is based on a request from a secondary node, and wherein the failure information comprises synchReconfigFailureSCG information.
However, Zhou discloses:
transmitting failure information in a case where the terminal device receives a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message to activate the cell group (Upon detection of an access problem on a PSCell during a SCG addition or a SCG change: an RRC connection re-establishment procedure may not be triggered, UL transmissions towards cells of an SCG may be stopped, a master base station may be informed by a wireless device of a SCG failure type. ¶0295),
wherein the RRC Reconfiguration message is based on a request from a secondary node (RRC connection reconfiguration for modifying SCells performed by RRC. ¶0225; A secondary base station may initiate a reconfiguration of the secondary base station existing serving cells (e.g. PUCCH towards the secondary base station); a secondary base station may decide which cell is a PSCell within a SCG; a master base station may or may not change content of RRC configurations provided by a secondary base station; in case of a SCG addition and/or a SCG SCell addition. In an example, when adding a new SCG SCell, dedicated RRC signaling may be used for sending required system information of a cell as for CA. Master and secondary base stations exchanges messages by RRC containers carried via Xn messages. ¶0296), and
Palat, Kung, and Zhou do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the failure information comprises synchReconfigFailureSCG information.
However, Wu discloses:
wherein the failure information comprises synchReconfigFailureSCG information (UE transmits an SCG failure message to the MN, master node. The SCG failure message includes a first failure type which can be set to synchReconfigFailure-SCG. ¶0142).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Palat, indication and deactivation of secondary node by a master node, with the teachings of Kung, stop UE from attempting to perform RACH to reconnect to secondary cell after deactivation, with the teachings of Zhou, a secondary node initiates a change to the SCell configuration by communicating with the master node, with the teachings of Wu, UE transmits failure information for SCG reconfiguration to the master node.
The motivation in doing so would be to improve network efficiency, management of cell groups, and UE power reduction by reducing unnecessary communication between UE and cell groups. (Palat: Abstract, ¶¶0162-0165, 0210, 0223 Fig. 11; Kung: ¶¶0005, 0153-0210, 0410-0411; Zhou: ¶¶0295-0296, 0309, 0325, ; Wu: Abstract, ¶¶0001, 0004, 0005, 0014, 0142)
RE Claims 36, 25, Palat disclose a terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the terminal re-establishes a first radio link control (RLC) entity of the SRB3 (SRB3 establishment and release can be performed on the secondary node, SN, change or addition with a RRC message including SRB3 configuration information. ¶0157. Master node, MeNB, communicates configuration information including SRB3 to the UE by an RRC message. ¶0158) .
RE Claims 37, 26, Palat disclose a terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the PDCP entity discards PDCP service data units (SDUs) and PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) (UE clears the PDCP SDU buffer on release. ¶0165, Fig. 11; 1118; PDCP PDUs are discarded upon integrity check failure of SRB3. ¶0174; IP check failure may cause the network to release the secondary node. ¶¶0161-0162; Master node, MeNB, generates the SRB3 release flag and inserts into the RRC connection reconfiguration information, a trigger/flag, communicated to the UE from the master node. ¶0164, Fig. 11:1106, 1114) ;
RE Claims 39, 28, Palat disclose a terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the first indication is comprised in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message (Master node, MeNB, generates the SRB3 release flag and inserts into the RRC connection reconfiguration information, a trigger/flag, communicated to the UE from the master node. ¶0164, Fig. 11:1106, 1114).
RE Claims 40, 30, Palat discloses a terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the secondary node requests the master node to deactivate the cell group (SgNB, secondary node, communicates SRB3 release, deactivate, indicator flag to MeNB. ¶0164, Fig. 11: 1104, 1108, 1110).
RE Claims 41, 29, Palat disclose a terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the master node requests the secondary node to deactivate the cell group (IP check failure reported to MeNB, master node, using a SCG failure indication with the MN providing this indication to the SN. ¶0186; IP check failure may cause the network to release the secondary node. ¶¶0161-0162).
RE Claims 42, 31, Palat disclose a terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the terminal deactivates a primary cell of the cell group and secondary cells of the cell group (During times of no data traffic activity for extended period of time, the UE transitions off to an RRC_IDLE state in which it disconnects, deactivates all cells, and does not perform further network operations. ¶0118).
Claim 38, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palat, in view of Kung, in view of Zhou, in view of Wu as applied to claims 24, 35 above, and further in view of Bergstrom et al. (US 20220167451 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”).
RE Claims 38, 27, Palat and Kung do not explicitly disclose: A terminal or method:
The terminal device of claim 35, wherein the terminal resets a media access control (MAC) for the cell group.
However, Bergstrom discloses:
A terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the terminal resets a media access control (MAC) for the cell group (Upon reception of the RRC release by the UE, deactivation of a cell, the UE shall reset the MAC and release the default MAC Cell Group configurations, if any. ¶¶0133, 0136).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Palat, deactivation of secondary cell group based on indication and SRB3, with the teachings of Bergstrom, resetting of MAC upon cell deactivation.
The motivation in doing so would be to discard MAC information no longer useable given deactivation of an associated cell group for network efficiency and power saving.
Claims 32, 33, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palat, in view of Kung, in view of Zhou, in view of Wu as applied to claims 24, 35 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20230247501, hereinafter “Kim”).
RE Claims 43, 32, Palat and Kung do not explicitly disclose
A terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the terminal receives a message to activate the cell group of the second network device and initiates a random access procedure on a primary cell of the cell group.
However, Kim discloses:
A terminal or method:
The terminal device, wherein the terminal receives a message to activate the cell group of the second network device (UE connects to gNB1, master mode, and exchanges network information and capabilities. Master node sends RRCReconfigure message, configuration for second network device, and UE completes reconfiguration for gNB2, second network device. ¶0174. Fig. 6; RRCReconfigure message includes configuration information of a PCell and Pscell. ¶0179, Fig. 6) and initiates a random access procedure on a primary cell of the cell group (Network configures Pcell, primary cell of master node, and Pscell, primary of the second node cell group. Primary cells are used to perform random access. ¶0149;).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Palat, deactivation of secondary cell group based on indication and SRB3, with the teachings of Kim, activate an inactive secondary cell group.
The motivation in doing so would be to activate or deactivate an associated cell group as for network efficiency and power saving.
RE Claim 33, Palat and Kung do not explicitly disclose:
The method, wherein the master node requests the secondary node to activate the cell group.
However, Kim discloses:
The method, wherein the master node requests the secondary node to activate the cell group (Base station, master node, configures UE through RRC messages for Scell. UE reports cell measurements to base station. Based on cell measurements, master node activates the Scells. ¶¶0152, 0174; Fig. 6; ¶0898)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Palat, deactivation of an active but not needed secondary cell group based on indication and SRB3, with the teachings of Kim, activate an inactive secondary cell group.
The motivation in doing so would be to activate or deactivate an associated cell group as for network efficiency and power saving.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palat, in view of Kung, in view of Zhou, in view of Wu, in view of Kim as applied to claims 32 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20210352750, hereinafter “Cheng”).
RE Claim 34, Palat does not explicitly disclose:
The method, wherein the secondary node requests the master node to activate the cell group.
However, Cheng discloses:
The method of claim, wherein the secondary node requests the master node to activate the cell group (Instructions for transmitting to the master cell an activation request for the secondary cell group. ¶0026; Receiving manager receives information that supports fast secondary cell group activation and deactivation and is passed on to the other components. ¶¶0287-0288, Fig. 10, 11, 12; Transmitting manager transmits to the master cell group an activation request for the secondary cell group based on the receiving manager information. ¶0313; Communications manager that supports cell group activation and deactivation includes the transmitting manager. ¶0302; Fig. Fig. 10, 11, 12 Therefore message passes from secondary node through the communication manager to the master node.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Palat, deactivation of secondary node by a master node, with the teachings of Cheng, secondary node requesting master node to activate a secondary cell group.
The motivation in doing so would be to improve network efficiency and management of cell groups by allowing either the secondary node or the master node to activate secondary cell groups.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24 and 35 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20220038968 A1 Latheef et al.
US 20220110180 A1 Jung et al.
US 20220377629 A1 Rugeland et al.
Huawei, HiSilicon, "MCG SCG failure handling in NR-DC," 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2#103bis, R2-1814115, Chengdu, China, Oct. 8-12, 2018. USPTO Retrieved 04-04-2026: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/TSG_RAN/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_103bis/Docs/R2-1814115.zip
The above references disclose various aspects of MCG and SCG management of changes in the cell groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. LANGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Eastern.
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, Nishant B. Divecha can be reached at 1 (571) 270-3125. 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.
/PAUL A. LANGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419