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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20, 2026 has been entered.
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 16-20 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); and performing, by the first node, an MCG recovery procedure (see at least paragraph 166 handover procedure).
Purkayastha et al fails to explicitly disclose performing, by the first node with the UE, an MCG recovery procedure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Futaki et al discloses performing, by the first node with the UE, an MCG recovery procedure (see at least paragraph 66-67 MCG performing recovery procedure in response to detection of MCG failure). 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.
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]); determining 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); and perform an MCG recovery procedure (see at least paragraph 166 handover procedure).
Purkayastha et al fails to explicitly disclose performing, with the UE, an MCG recovery procedure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Futaki et al discloses performing, with the UE, an MCG recovery procedure (see at least paragraph 66-67 MCG performing recovery procedure in response to detection of MCG failure). 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.
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]); and performing, by the UE, an MCG recovery procedure (see at least paragraph 166 handover procedure).
Purkayastha et al fails to explicitly disclose performing, by the UE with the first node of the RAN, an MCG recovery procedure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Futaki et al discloses performing, by the UE with the first node of the RAN, an MCG recovery procedure (see at least paragraph 66-67 MCG performing recovery procedure in response to detection of MCG failure). 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.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16-20, see above rejection of claims 2-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 20, 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 pages 6-7 that Purkayastha et al does not disclose “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” 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 “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”, when considered as a whole. As stated in the previous office action, paragraph 166 and fig. 4 [424] of Purkayastha et al discloses handover command. Additionally paragraph 191 discloses that UE sends a RLF indication to an SN for forwarding to the source MN; upon reception of the RLF indication, MN to perform handover procedure of UE to target MN; during the handover procedure SN may be configured as new MN and a new SN may be configured to maintain dual connectivity. Furthermore, paragraphs 201 discloses SN may maintain connection; wherein SN may take over some or all bearer function. Therefore, the Purkayastha et al and Futaki et al teaches the above limitation.
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