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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive. As discussed below in the rejection, the references Zhang and Kim do in fact disclose the new features of the amended claims, if the claim limitations are interpreted pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Please see rejections below for details.
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.
Claim(s) 24, 26, 28,29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0051767 A1 to Zhang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0178208 A1 to Kim et al.
As to claim 26, Zhang discloses
A terminal device comprising: a transmitter configured to (Fig. 9, 189-197, UE 904):
communicate with a first network device and a second network device (Fig. 9, 189-197, “UE configured in DC mode 908”, meaning the UE is in communication with both MN 902 [“first network device”] and SN 906 [“second network device”]); and
transmit, to the first network device using a network resource, UE assistance information (Fig. 9, 189-197, SCG activation request 932 [“UE assistance information” pursuant to broadest reasonable interpretation bRI of this claim term] transmitted to MN 902 [“first network device”]) in a case where the terminal device has uplink data to be sent to the second network device and the uplink data is related to a deactivated Secondary Cell Group (SCG) of the second network device (Fig. 9, 189-197, “SCG deactivated 924”, “SCG activation request 932”, 934, especially paragraphs 193-195, teaching “[i]n response to determining that uplink data is available for transmission to the SN [which is associated with deactivated SCG 924]” 932 is sent to the MN, teaching this limitation since the sending of 932 would indicate that “uplink data is available for transmission to the SN”, i.e., “in a case where the terminal device has uplink data to be sent to the second network device”),
wherein the UE assistance information includes availability of the uplink data (see citations and discussion immediately above, teaching that 932, i.e., “UE assistance information”, is sent when “uplink data is available for transmission to the SN”, meaning that the reception of 932 would indicate that uplink data is “availab[le]”, teaching this limitation pursuant to the BRI of “availability of the uplink data” ; paragraph 195 further teaching that 932 may include “the available data amount for transmission to the sCG”, which is an indication that UL data is “availab[le]”, teaching this limitation pursuant to the BRI of this limitation).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose a signaling radio bearer 1 (SRB1).
Kim discloses a signaling radio bearer 1 (SRB1) (paragraph 84,85,92).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Kim, in conjunction with and to modify Zhang’s teachings, to reject the limitations of this claim, at least because both references pertain to dual connectivity featuring master and secondary nodes. In particular, it would have been obvious to a phosita that the network resource utilized by the UE in Zhang to transmit UE assistance information message to the first network device may be embodied by the SRB1 disclosed in Kim that is also a network resource utilized in the dual connectivity environment associated with the UE and the first/master node, so that Zhang’s teaching of “ transmit, to the first network device using a network resource, UE assistance information …” and Kim’s teaching of “a signaling radio bearer 1 (SRB1)” may be combined to reject “ transmit, to the first network device using a SRB1, UE assistance information …”. The suggestion or motivation would have been to provide an improved method of radio/frame resource allocation in wireless communications systems, especially dual-connectivity DC systems. (Kim, paragraphs 1-20; Zhang, paragraphs 1-34). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claims 24 and 28, see rejection for claim 26.
As to claim 29, Zhang and Kim teach the method as in the claim 24.
Zhang further discloses wherein the communicating with the first network device and the second network device comprises communicating with the first network device and the second network device in dual connectivity (paragraphs 4, 18,23,26: dual connectivity).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first network device is associated with a Master Cell Group (MCG) and the second network device is associated with the Secondary Cell Group (SCG).
Kim discloses wherein the first network device is associated with a Master Cell Group (MCG) and the second network device is associated with the Secondary Cell Group (SCG). (paragraphs 84 and 92, disclosing MN [“first network device”] may be associated with a MCG and SN [“second network device”] may be associated with SCG).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Kim, in conjunction with and to modify Zhang’s teachings, to reject the limitations of this claim, at least because both references pertain to dual connectivity featuring master and secondary nodes. The suggestion or motivation would have been to provide an improved method of radio/frame resource allocation in wireless communications systems, especially dual-connectivity DC systems. (Kim, paragraphs 1-20; Zhang, paragraphs 1-34). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
AS to claims 30,31, see rejection for claim 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights