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 Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on August 7, 2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purkayastha et al (WO 2020113367) in view of Futaki et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0256368).
Regarding claim 1, Purkayastha et al discloses a method in a first node of a radio access network (RAN), for managing a connection between a network entity that supports packet-based calls and a user equipment (UE) (fig. 4 [402, UE]) in dual connectivity with a master node (MN) (fig. 4 [406, MN]) and a secondary node (SN) (fig. 4 [404, SN]), the method comprising: communicating, by the first node, information between the network entity and the UE, using a first radio bearer associated with a master cell group (MCG) for the UE (see at least paragraph 160 and 169; fig. 4 [432]); determining, by the first node, that the UE has detected an MCG failure (see at least paragraph 160 and fig. 4 [412] detect RLF); in response to the determining, sending, by the first node, to a second node of the RAN supporting a secondary cell group (SCG) for the UE, a request to configure a second radio bearer associated with the SCG to maintain the connection between the UE and the network entity using the second radio bearer (see at least paragraph 166 and fig. 4 [424] handover command).
Purkayastha et al fails to explicitly disclose transmitting, to the UE via the second node, a radio resource control (RRC) container including an SN configuration for the second node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Futaki et al discloses transmitting, to the UE via the second node, a radio resource control (RRC) container including an SN configuration for the second node (see at least paragraph 102-103 MN transmits RRC message to UE via SCG; SN receives RRC message from MN with SN RRC container; SN sends the SN RRC container to the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Futaki et al into the system of Purkayastha et al, for purpose of UE to communicate with the MN and SN via air interfaces to perform dual connectivity between MCG and SCG; to perform inter-MN handover and to recover from MCG failure.
Regarding claim 2, Purkayastha et al discloses implemented in the MN, wherein the second node is the SN (fig. 4 [404, SN]).
Regarding claim 3, Purkayastha et al discloses implemented in a central unit (CU) of a distributed base station, wherein the second node is a distributed unit (DU) of the distributed base station (see at least paragraph 134).
Regarding claim 4, Purkayastha et al discloses the first radio bearer is dedicated to conveying signaling (see at least paragraph 91).
Regarding claim 5, Purkayastha et al discloses communicating the information further includes communicating data between the network entity and the UE, using a third radio bearer associated with the MCG, wherein the request further indicates to the second node to configure a fourth radio bearer associated with the SCG, the fourth radio bearer dedicated to conveying data and the second radio bearer dedicated to conveying signaling (see at least paragraph 91).
Regarding claim 6, Purkayastha et al discloses the first radio bearer is associated with a first radio access technology (RAT); and the second radio bearer is associated with a second RAT different from the first RAT (see at least paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 7, Purkayastha et al discloses determining prior to determining that the UE has detected the MCG failure, whether the MCG recovery procedure should be enabled for the UE; wherein sending the request is further in response to determining that the MCG recovery procedure has been enabled for the UE (see at least paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 8, Purkayastha et al discloses determining whether the MCG recovery procedure should be enabled for the UE is based on determining whether the UE has a packet-based call in progress (see at least paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 9, Purkayastha et al discloses determining a timer length for the MCG recovery procedure based on determining whether the UE has a packet-based call in progress (see at least paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 10, Purkayastha et al discloses a node of a radio access network (RAN) configured to manage a connection between a network entity that supports packet-based calls and a user equipment (UE) (fig. 4 [402, UE]) in dual connectivity with a master node (MN) (fig. 4 [406, MN]) and a secondary node (SN) (fig. 4 [404, SN]), the node comprising processing hardware and configured to : communicate information between the network entity and the UE, using a first radio bearer associated with a master cell group (MCG) for the UE (see at least paragraph 160 and 169; fig. 4 [432]); determine that the UE has detected an MCG failure (see at least paragraph 160 and fig. 4 [412] detect RLF); in response to the determining, send, to a second node of the RAN supporting a secondary cell group (SCG) for the UE, a request to configure a second radio bearer associated with the SCG to maintain the connection between the UE and the network entity using the second radio bearer (see at least paragraph 166 and fig. 4 [424] handover command).
Purkayastha et al fails to explicitly disclose transmit, to the UE via the second node, a radio resource control (RRC) container including an SN configuration for the second node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Futaki et al discloses transmit, to the UE via the second node, a radio resource control (RRC) container including an SN configuration for the second node (see at least paragraph 102-103 MN transmits RRC message to UE via SCG; SN receives RRC message from MN with SN RRC container; SN sends the SN RRC container to the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Futaki et al into the system of Purkayastha et al, for purpose of UE to communicate with the MN and SN via air interfaces to perform dual connectivity between MCG and SCG; to perform inter-MN handover and to recover from MCG failure.
Regarding claim 11, Purkayastha et al discloses a method in a user equipment (UE) (fig. 4 [402, UE]) in dual connectivity with a master node (MN) (fig. 4 [406, MN]) and a secondary node (SN) (fig. 4 [404, SN]) of a radio access network (RAN) for managing a connection with a network entity that supports packet-based calls via the RAN, the method comprising: communicating information with the network entity using a first radio bearer between the UE and a first node of the RAN, the first radio bearer associated with a master cell group (MCG) for the UE (see at least paragraph 160 and 169; fig. 4 [432]); detecting an MCG failure on the first radio bearer (see at least paragraph 160 and fig. 4 [412] detect RLF); reporting the MCG failure to a second node of the RAN supporting a secondary cell group (SCG) for the UE (see at least paragraph 161 and fig. 4 [414]); after reporting the MCG failure, receiving, from the second node, a configuration for a second radio bearer associated with the SCG (see at least paragraph 167 and fig. 4 [426]); maintaining the connection with the network entity using the second radio bearer in accordance with the configuration (see at least paragraph 169 and fig. 4 [432]).
Purkayastha et al fails to explicitly after the MCG failure, receiving, from the second node, a radio resource control (RRC) container message including an SN configuration for a second radio bearer associated with the SCG.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Futaki et al discloses after the MCG failure, receiving, from the second node, a radio resource control (RRC) container message including an SN configuration for a second radio bearer associated with the SCG (see at least paragraph 102-103 MN transmits RRC message to UE via SCG; SN receives RRC message from MN with SN RRC container; SN sends the SN RRC container to the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Futaki et al into the system of Purkayastha et al, for purpose of UE to communicate with the MN and SN via air interfaces to perform dual connectivity between MCG and SCG; to perform inter-MN handover and to recover from MCG failure.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16-20, see above rejection of claims 2-6.
Regarding claim 21, Futaki et al discloses wherein the request is an SN modification request (see at least paragraph 76). Same motivation as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 7, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejections as the claim is currently written. Arguments and corresponding examiner’s responses are shown below for Claim 1. The same arguments are valid for the Claim 1 and the similar features of other independent claims.
Argument: The Applicant argues on page 6 that Purkayastha et al and Futaki et al do not disclose “transmitting, to the UE via the second node, a radio resource control (RRC) container including an SN configuration for the second node” of independent claim 1 and similar feature in independent claims 10 and 11. Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because the combination of Purkayastha et al and Futaki et al teaches “transmitting, to the UE via the second node, a radio resource control (RRC) container including an SN configuration for the second node”, when considered as a whole. Paragraphs 102-103 of Futaki et al discloses that MN transmits RRC message to UE via SCG; SN receives RRC message from MN with SN RRC container; SN sends the SN RRC container to the UE. Therefore, the Purkayastha et al and Futaki et al teaches the above limitation when considered as a whole.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights