DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to claims filed on 06/17/2026. Claims 23-25, 27-30, 33, 34, and 36-46 are pending for evaluation.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 23-25, 27-30, 33, 34, and 36-46 are pending for evaluation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pg. 8 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the Response to Arguments included in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/19/2026 incorrectly stated “the rejections in this action do ‘not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the [Applicant's previously submitted] argument,’ have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior response did not state that the new grounds of rejection relied on none of the previously applied references; rather, it stated that the new grounds did not rely on any previously applied reference for the particular teaching or matter specifically challenged by Applicant’s prior arguments. Because Applicant amended the claims and the subsequent rejection relied on a newly applied reference to address the amended/challenged subject matter, the prior arguments were rendered moot notwithstanding the continued reliance on the other previously cited references for other claim limitations.
In response to Applicant’s characterization of the rejection of Claim 38 made in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/19/2026 regarding how to determine to suspend an SCG as “baseless” on pg. 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument that Lee fails to disclose “suspending an SCG” improperly considers Lee in isolation rather than the references as combined in the rejection. The rejection does not rely upon Lee to teach the underlying determination or operation of suspending the SCG. Rather, Hu teaches the SCG suspension process, including receiving information indicating that the SCG is to be suspended and suspending the SCG based on that information (See Hu Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0165]).
Lee is relied upon for the additionally recited triggering events or conditions upon which the determination is based, particularly load-based conditions. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertions that Lee merely deactivates individual secondary cells or does not itself suspend an entire SCG do not address the rejection as actually presented, which relies upon the combined teachings of Hu and Lee rather than Lee individually.
Further, during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP §2111.
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Applicant’s argument that Lee’s disclosure of a “load condition of [a] carrier” cannot correspond to the claimed load-based triggering conditions is not persuasive. The claim does not recite a particular measurement, threshold, calculation, or node-wide mechanism by which an “overload of the SN” or a “low load of the MN” must be detected. Consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms, detecting a load condition of radio resources associated with the respective secondary or master node encompasses detecting whether those node-associated resources are in an overloaded or low-load condition.
Lee expressly teaches that secondary component carriers may be activated or deactivated according to the required amount of transmitted/received data (Para. [0066]), that allocation of secondary component carriers may be based on “system load (i.e., static/dynamic load balancing), a peak data rate or a service quality requirement” (Para. [0067]), and that activation or deactivation may be determined by a base station based on “ a load condition of [a] carrier” (Para. [0068]).
Lee thereafter applies these concepts in its dual-connectivity architecture, wherein the MCG is associated with the MeNB and the SCG is associated with the SeNB, and further teaches that a PSCell within the SeNB may be changed specifically because of “load balancing or RRM decision” (Para. [0139]). Thus, Lee teaches making secondary-resource configuration/deactivation decisions in response to detected load conditions and load balancing of resources associated with the master and secondary nodes. When those load-based triggering teachings of Lee are applied to Hu’s SCG suspension process, the combination teaches determining to suspend the SCG in response to at least one of the alternatively recited load-based triggering conditions.
Lastly, on pg. 10, Applicant notes the limitations "a request to suspend the SCG from the other one of the MN and SN” and "receiving, at the first RNN, which is a first one of the MN and the SN, a request to suspend the SCG from the other one of the MN and SN.” These limitations are not present in Claim 38, as acknowledged by the Applicant. Accordingly, Applicant’s contention that the cited references fail to disclose those additional requirements does not identify a deficiency in the rejection of Claim 38.
In conclusion, Hu/Lee teaches Claim 38 and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is upheld.
Applicant’s arguments presented with respect to Claim(s) 39 and 40 are substantively the same as those set forth for Claim 38. Accordingly, the same reasoning and supporting explanation provided for Claim 38 are equally applicable to Claims 39 and 40, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are upheld.
Applicant’s arguments on pg. 10-11 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, they system of Hu/Wang/Ali fails to teach or suggest at least “the RRC message indicating to suspend the SCG: comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG)” in Claims 23 and 41, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it considers Wang in isolation and requires Wang itself to disclose every feature of the claimed RRC message. As set forth in the rejection, Hu teaches an RRC message including an indication to suspend the SCG, while Wang is relied upon for teaching that configuration information for the SCG, including configuration of the PSCell and SCells, may be provided to the UE using an RRC message. Thus, the proposed combination modifies Hu’s RRC suspension message to include the SCG/MCG configuration information taught by Wang, thereby resulting in an RRC message that both indicates suspension of the SCG and comprises the recited configuration. Applicant’s observation that Wang also describes use of a MAC control element for performing a deactivation operation does not negate Wang’s separate teaching of providing the relevant SCG configuration using RRC signaling, nor does it address the references as combined in the rejection.
In conclusion, Hu/Wang/Ali teaches “the RRC message indicating to suspend the SCG: comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG)” in Claims 23 and 41 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are upheld.
Applicant’s arguments presented with respect to Claim(s) 24, 25, and 27-30 are substantively the same as those set forth for Claims 23 and 41. Accordingly, the same reasoning and supporting explanation provided for Claims 23 and 41 are equally applicable to Claims 24, 25, and 27-30, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are upheld.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12, presented with respect to Claim(s) 33 and 42 and dependent Claims 34 and 37 are substantively the same as those set forth for Claim 23. Accordingly, the same reasoning and supporting explanation provided for Claim 23 are equally applicable to Claim(s) 33 and 42 and dependent Claims 34 and 37; thus, the rejections of Claim(s) 33 and 42 and dependent Claims 34 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. §103 are upheld.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12, presented with respect to Claim(s) 43 and 46 are substantively the same as those set forth for Claims 33 and 42, and thereby Claim 23. Accordingly, the same reasoning and supporting explanation provided for Claim 23 are equally applicable to Claim(s) 43 and 46; thus, the rejections of Claim(s) 43 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. §103 are upheld.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12-13, with respect to Claim 36 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §103 of Claim 36 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pg. 13-14 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the system of Hu/Wang/Ali/Palat fails to teach or suggest at least “the RRC message comprises a configuration of an MCG” in Claims 44 and 45, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it again evaluates Palat in isolation and requires Palat itself to disclose an RRC message that both includes the MCG configuration and indicates suspension of the SCG. The rejection does not rely upon Palat for the indication to suspend the SCG; rather, the Hu/Wang/Ali combination supplies the RRC suspension signaling, while Palat is relied upon for the additional teaching that an RRC message may include an MCG configuration together with an encapsulated SCG configuration. Thus, when the references are considered as combined, Palat’s configuration teaching is incorporated into the RRC signaling of Hu/Wang/Ali, resulting in the claimed RRC message comprising a configuration of the MCG. Applicant’s observation that Palat, standing alone, does not expressly place the MCG configuration in an RRC message indicating SCG suspension therefore does not address the rejection as proposed.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, as set forth in the rejection, Palat teaches including both an MCG configuration and an encapsulated SCG configuration in an RRC message in order to provide a unified configuration framework for split bearers at the UE, such that only one split-bearer type may be needed irrespective of the location of the termination point, thereby simplifying UE implementation and operation.
Incorporating Palat’s RRC configuration structure into the RRC signaling of Hu/Wang/Ali would therefore have predictably provided the same simplification and unification benefits in the combined dual-connectivity system. Moreover, because the Hu/Wang/Ali system uses RRC signaling to control the UE’s SCG operating state, including the associated MCG configuration in that RRC signaling would allow the UE to receive the configuration information applicable to continued operation with the MCG when the SCG is suspended, rather than requiring separate configuration signaling. Accordingly, the rejection provides both an articulated reason for the proposed modification and a predictable benefit resulting therefrom.
In conclusion, Hu/Wang/Ali/Palat teaches or at least suggests “the RRC message comprises a configuration of an MCG” in Claims 44 and 45, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are upheld.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 36 is considered to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the particular allocation of SCG suspension control in which the secondary node initiates the suspension procedure by requesting suspension from the master node and then receives the master node’s approval.
Jung et al. (US 20230164871) Fig. 2H, Para. [0541-0543] comes close by disclosing the inter-node suspension request/response signaling, but places the inquiry/request on the master/base station side and the response on the secondary cell base station side.
Zhang (US 20230122107 ) Fig. 9-10, Para. [0188-0200] likewise teach coordinated SCG deactivation, but has the MN determine that the SCG should be deactivated and send the corresponding deactivation command to the SN and/or UE, rather than having the SN request suspension and await MN approval.
Accordingly, neither reference cures the deficiency in the prior art combination without reversing the disclosed control relationship.
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.
Claim(s) 23-25, 27-30, 33, 34, 37, 41, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2022/0264486), Hu hereinafter, in view of Wang (US 2022/0167445, presently presented), and further in view of Ali et al. (US 2022/0287124), Ali hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 23, Hu teaches a method, in a user equipment (UE) operating in dual connectivity (DC) with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN), for suspending a secondary cell group (SCG), the method comprising (Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]):
receiving, from a first radio network node (RNN), a Radio Resource Configuration (RRC) message including an indication a command to suspend the SCG (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218] - [0161] 701: A terminal device receives first information, where the first information is used to indicate the terminal device to suspend an SCG; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297] );
and, in response to receiving the command RRC message, suspending the SCG (Fig. 7, step 702; Para. [0160-0218] - [0163] 702: The terminal device suspends the SCG based on the first information; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]),
Yet, Hu does not expressly teach wherein suspending the SCG comprises deactivating a primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the SCG and wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG).
However, Wang teaches
wherein suspending the SCG comprises deactivating a primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the SCG (Fig. 4, S402; Para. [0118-0127] - [0127] S402. The terminal performs a deactivation operation on the secondary cell group according to the deactivation indication; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266]);
wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG) (Fig. 5, Para. [0124-0126] - [0124] FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of a format of a 4-byte MAC CE. The MAC CE includes one reserved bit (denoted as R in the figure) and 31 activation/deactivation bits. The network side may provide the configuration of the PSCell for the UE by using a radio resource control (radio resource control, RRC) message. The configuration of the PSCell includes a serving cell identifier or index (ServCellIndex) of the PSCell. In addition, the network side may further provide a configuration of the SCell for the UE by using a radio resource control message. The configuration of the SCell includes a correspondence between an SCell identifier and an index (index) indicating the SCell. As shown in FIG. 5, for an SCell whose index is i, Ci indicates an activated/deactivated state of the SCell. For example, Ci=0 indicates that the SCell i is deactivated, and Ci=1 indicates that the SCell i is activated. A capability of the terminal is to support a maximum of 32 component carriers (component carrier, CC), including the PCell, the PSCell, and all SCells in the MCG and the SCG. If a reserved bit is used as the deactivation indication, R=0 may be set. If a bit corresponding to the serving cell ID of the PSCell (assuming that the bit is C.sub.20 in the figure) is used as the deactivation indication, C.sub.20=0 may be set; See also Para. [0130, 0193, 0212]; Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hu’s invention of “a communication method and a communication apparatus, to optimize a configuration of a terminal device that is used when an SCG is suspended” (Hu Para. [0005]) with Wang’s invention of “a communication method, a communications apparatus, a storage medium, and a communications system, to reduce energy consumption of a terminal and a network-side device during DC communication” (Wang Para. [0005]) because Wang’s invention provides a method for “the deactivation operation on the secondary cell group according to the indication of the master node or the secondary node, to suspend link communication of the secondary cell group, thereby reducing energy consumption of the terminal and a network side, and reducing signaling overheads without performing a secondary node release procedure” (Wang Para. [008]).
Yet, Hu nor Wang expressly teach and sending, to the first RNN, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete.
However, Ali teaches
and sending, to the first RNN, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete (Fig. 7, Para. [0128-0130] - [0128] FIG. 7 shows an example signalling diagram for use in one embodiment. In this example, there is a UP data transfer between a UE 702 and a SN-1 706 over a NR interface. SN-1 has an SCG bearer tunnel with the NGCN 710. It is determined for UE 702 operating using LTE/NR tight interworking that SCG operation with SN-1 706 should be suspended due to inactivity between the UE and the SCG. The UE receives a suspend request from the MN 704 which includes NR monitoring information. The UE 702 stores the SCG configuration and sets NR configuration to INACTIVE and applies the NR monitoring information. The UE forwards an indication to the network that the SCG suspend has been completed; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0099-0100]; Fig. 6, Para. [0101-0127])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide and sending, to the first RNN, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete as taught by Ali, in the combined system of Hu/Wang, so that it would provide “to optimize the dual connectivity between LTE and NR so that when the NR radio is not active, i.e., there is no active data transmission and the NR radio is directed to a power efficient state such as RRC_INACTIVE, the UE is not required to perform active measurements (as may be done in a connected state),” thereby allowing UE “power consumption” to be reduced (Ali Para. [0098]).
Regarding Claim 33, Hu teaches a method, in a first radio network node (RNN) serving a user equipment (UE) operating in dual connectivity (DC) with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN), for suspending the UE's operation with a secondary cell group (SCG), the method comprising (Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]):
determining that the SCG is to be suspended; and sending, to the UE, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message including an indication to suspend the SCG (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218]; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]);
in response to receiving the RRC message, suspend the SCG (Fig. 7, step 702; Para. [0160-0218]; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]),
Yet, Hu does not expressly teach wherein suspending the SCG comprises deactivating a primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the SCG and wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG).
However, Wang teaches
wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG) (Fig. 5, Para. [0124-0126]; See also Para. [0130, 0193, 0212]; Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hu’s invention of “a communication method and a communication apparatus, to optimize a configuration of a terminal device that is used when an SCG is suspended” (Hu Para. [0005]) with Wang’s invention of “a communication method, a communications apparatus, a storage medium, and a communications system, to reduce energy consumption of a terminal and a network-side device during DC communication” (Wang Para. [0005]) because Wang’s invention provides a method for “the deactivation operation on the secondary cell group according to the indication of the master node or the secondary node, to suspend link communication of the secondary cell group, thereby reducing energy consumption of the terminal and a network side, and reducing signaling overheads without performing a secondary node release procedure” (Wang Para. [008]).
Yet, Hu nor Wang expressly teach and receiving, in response to the RRC message, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete.
However, Ali teaches
and receiving, in response to the RRC message, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete (Fig. 7, Para. [0128-0130] - [0128] FIG. 7 shows an example signalling diagram for use in one embodiment. In this example, there is a UP data transfer between a UE 702 and a SN-1 706 over a NR interface. SN-1 has an SCG bearer tunnel with the NGCN 710. It is determined for UE 702 operating using LTE/NR tight interworking that SCG operation with SN-1 706 should be suspended due to inactivity between the UE and the SCG. The UE receives a suspend request from the MN 704 which includes NR monitoring information. The UE 702 stores the SCG configuration and sets NR configuration to INACTIVE and applies the NR monitoring information. The UE forwards an indication to the network that the SCG suspend has been completed; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0099-0100]; Fig. 6, Para. [0101-0127])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide and receiving, in response to the RRC message, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete as taught by Ali, in the combined system of Hu/Wang, so that it would provide “to optimize the dual connectivity between LTE and NR so that when the NR radio is not active, i.e., there is no active data transmission and the NR radio is directed to a power efficient state such as RRC_INACTIVE, the UE is not required to perform active measurements (as may be done in a connected state),” thereby allowing UE “power consumption” to be reduced (Ali Para. [0098]).
Regarding Claim 41, Hu teaches a user equipment (UE) for operating in dual connectivity (DC) with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN), the UE comprising (Fig. 13, Para. [0298-0303]; See also Fig. 14, Para. [0304-0309]; Fig. 15, Para. [0310-0316])
radio transceiver circuitry configured to communicate with a radio network node (RNN) in the wireless network (Fig. 13, element 1320; Para. [0298-0303]; See also Fig. 14, Para. [0304-0309]; Fig. 15, Para. [0310-0316]);
and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the radio transceiver circuitry, whereby the processing circuitry and the radio transceiver circuitry are configured to (Fig. 13, element 1310; Para. [0298-0303]; See also Fig. 14, Para. [0304-0309]; Fig. 15, Para. [0310-0316]):
receive, from a first radio network node (RNN) a Radio Resource Configuration (RRC) message including an indication to suspend the SCG (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218]; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]);
in response to receiving the RRC message, suspend the SCG (Fig. 7, step 702; Para. [0160-0218]; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]),
Yet, Hu does not expressly teach wherein suspending the SCG comprises deactivating a primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the SCG and wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG).
However, Wang teaches
wherein suspending the SCG comprises deactivating a primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the SCG (Fig. 4, S402; Para. [0118-0127] - [0127] S402. The terminal performs a deactivation operation on the secondary cell group according to the deactivation indication; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266]);
wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG) (Fig. 5, Para. [0124-0126]; See also Para. [0130, 0193, 0212]; Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hu’s invention of “a communication method and a communication apparatus, to optimize a configuration of a terminal device that is used when an SCG is suspended” (Hu Para. [0005]) with Wang’s invention of “a communication method, a communications apparatus, a storage medium, and a communications system, to reduce energy consumption of a terminal and a network-side device during DC communication” (Wang Para. [0005]) because Wang’s invention provides a method for “the deactivation operation on the secondary cell group according to the indication of the master node or the secondary node, to suspend link communication of the secondary cell group, thereby reducing energy consumption of the terminal and a network side, and reducing signaling overheads without performing a secondary node release procedure” (Wang Para. [008]).
Yet, Hu nor Wang expressly teach and send, to the first RNN, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete.
However, Ali teaches
and send, to the first RNN, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete (Fig. 7, Para. [0128-0130] - [0128] FIG. 7 shows an example signalling diagram for use in one embodiment. In this example, there is a UP data transfer between a UE 702 and a SN-1 706 over a NR interface. SN-1 has an SCG bearer tunnel with the NGCN 710. It is determined for UE 702 operating using LTE/NR tight interworking that SCG operation with SN-1 706 should be suspended due to inactivity between the UE and the SCG. The UE receives a suspend request from the MN 704 which includes NR monitoring information. The UE 702 stores the SCG configuration and sets NR configuration to INACTIVE and applies the NR monitoring information. The UE forwards an indication to the network that the SCG suspend has been completed; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0099-0100]; Fig. 6, Para. [0101-0127])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide and send, to the first RNN, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete as taught by Ali, in the combined system of Hu/Wang, so that it would provide “to optimize the dual connectivity between LTE and NR so that when the NR radio is not active, i.e., there is no active data transmission and the NR radio is directed to a power efficient state such as RRC_INACTIVE, the UE is not required to perform active measurements (as may be done in a connected state),” thereby allowing UE “power consumption” to be reduced (Ali Para. [0098]).
Regarding Claim 42, Hu teaches radio network node for serving a user equipment (UE) operating in dual connectivity (DC) with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN), the radio network node comprising (Fig. 13, Para. [0298-0303]; See also Fig. 14, Para. [0304-0309]; Fig. 15, Para. [0310-0316])
communication interface circuitry configured to communicate with one or more UEs (Fig. 13, element 1320; Para. [0298-0303]; See also Fig. 14, Para. [0304-0309]; Fig. 15, Para. [0310-0316]);
and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the communication interface circuitry, whereby the processing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry are configured to (Fig. 13, element 1310; Para. [0298-0303]; See also Fig. 14, Para. [0304-0309]; Fig. 15, Para. [0310-0316]):
determine that the SCG is to be suspended; and send, to the UE, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message including an indication to suspend the SCG (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218]; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]);
Yet, Hu does not expressly teach wherein suspending the SCG comprises deactivating a primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the SCG and wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG).
However, Wang teaches
wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of the SCG or a configuration of a Master Cell Group (MCG) (Fig. 5, Para. [0124-0126]; See also Para. [0130, 0193, 0212]; Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hu’s invention of “a communication method and a communication apparatus, to optimize a configuration of a terminal device that is used when an SCG is suspended” (Hu Para. [0005]) with Wang’s invention of “a communication method, a communications apparatus, a storage medium, and a communications system, to reduce energy consumption of a terminal and a network-side device during DC communication” (Wang Para. [0005]) because Wang’s invention provides a method for “the deactivation operation on the secondary cell group according to the indication of the master node or the secondary node, to suspend link communication of the secondary cell group, thereby reducing energy consumption of the terminal and a network side, and reducing signaling overheads without performing a secondary node release procedure” (Wang Para. [008]).
Yet, Hu nor Wang expressly teach and receive, in response to the RRC message, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete.
However, Ali teaches
and receive, in response to the RRC message, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete (Fig. 7, Para. [0128-0130] - [0128] FIG. 7 shows an example signalling diagram for use in one embodiment. In this example, there is a UP data transfer between a UE 702 and a SN-1 706 over a NR interface. SN-1 has an SCG bearer tunnel with the NGCN 710. It is determined for UE 702 operating using LTE/NR tight interworking that SCG operation with SN-1 706 should be suspended due to inactivity between the UE and the SCG. The UE receives a suspend request from the MN 704 which includes NR monitoring information. The UE 702 stores the SCG configuration and sets NR configuration to INACTIVE and applies the NR monitoring information. The UE forwards an indication to the network that the SCG suspend has been completed; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0099-0100]; Fig. 6, Para. [0101-0127])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide and receive, in response to the RRC message, a message indicating that suspension of the SCG is complete as taught by Ali, in the combined system of Hu/Wang, so that it would provide “to optimize the dual connectivity between LTE and NR so that when the NR radio is not active, i.e., there is no active data transmission and the NR radio is directed to a power efficient state such as RRC_INACTIVE, the UE is not required to perform active measurements (as may be done in a connected state),” thereby allowing UE “power consumption” to be reduced (Ali Para. [0098]).
Regarding Claims 24 and 34, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claims 23 and 33.
Hu also teaches
wherein the first RNN is acting as the MN (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218] - [0162] It should be noted that the first information is sent by a network device. The network device may be an MN, or may be an SN. In other words, the first information may be sent by the MN, or may be sent by the SN. The MN or the SN may send the first information to the terminal device in a plurality of manners, for example, by using a MAC control element (CE), an RRC message, or indication information of L1; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]).
Regarding Claim 25, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claim 23.
Hu also teaches
wherein the first RNN is acting as the SN (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218] - [0162] It should be noted that the first information is sent by a network device. The network device may be an MN, or may be an SN. In other words, the first information may be sent by the MN, or may be sent by the SN. The MN or the SN may send the first information to the terminal device in a plurality of manners, for example, by using a MAC control element (CE), an RRC message, or indication information of L1; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]).
Regarding Claim 27, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claim 23.
Hu also teaches
receiving a command to resume operation with the SCG (Fig. 8, step 801; Para. [0219-0233] - [0219] In this embodiment of this application, by using a method shown in FIG. 8, the terminal device alternatively stops suspending the SCG, in other words, restores to a non-suspend state from a suspend state. FIG. 8 is a schematic flowchart of a communication method according to an embodiment of this application. [0220] 801: A terminal device receives second information, where the second information is used to indicate the terminal device to enter an SCG non-suspend state; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297] );
and in response to the command to resume operation, resuming operation with the SCG (Fig. 8, step 802; Para. [0219-0233] - [0226] 802: The terminal device stops suspending the SCG based on the second information; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297] ).
Regarding Claim 28, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claim 27.
Hu also teaches
wherein the command to suspend the SCG is received from a first one of the MN and SN (Fig. 8, step 801; Para. [0219-0233] - [0221] It should be noted that the second information may be sent by a network device, and the network device may be an MN or an SN. It should be further understood that the network device that sends the second information may be the same as the network device that sends the first information in FIG. 7, or may be different from the network device that sends the first information in FIG. 7; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297])
and the command to resume the SCG is received from the other of the MN and SN (Fig. 9, S906; Para. [0240] - S906. The SN sends an activation indication to the UE; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266]).
Regarding Claim 29, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claim 27.
Yet, Hu does not expressly teach wherein resuming the SCG comprises restarting monitoring of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) in at least one cell of the SCG.
However, Wang teaches
wherein resuming the SCG comprises restarting monitoring of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) in at least one cell of the SCG (Para. [0171-0172] - [0171] Operation 5: The terminal resumes some or all of physical layer operations for the PSCell. [0172] For example, the terminal may perform various physical layer operations such as starting to perform PDCCH monitoring, performing CSI-RS measurement, and continuing to perform CQI reporting. Details are not described again; See also Para. [0143, 0178]; Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hu’s invention of “a communication method and a communication apparatus, to optimize a configuration of a terminal device that is used when an SCG is suspended” (Hu Para. [0005]) with Wang’s invention of “a communication method, a communications apparatus, a storage medium, and a communications system, to reduce energy consumption of a terminal and a network-side device during DC communication” (Wang Para. [0005]) because Wang’s invention provides a method for “the deactivation operation on the secondary cell group according to the indication of the master node or the secondary node, to suspend link communication of the secondary cell group, thereby reducing energy consumption of the terminal and a network side, and reducing signaling overheads without performing a secondary node release procedure” (Wang Para. [008]).
Regarding Claim 30, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claim 27.
Yet, Hu does not expressly teach wherein resuming the SCG comprises any one or more of: switching a primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the SCG to a non-dormant bandwidth part (BWP); and restoring a stored SCG configuration and resuming operation using one or more SCG bearers according to the restored SCG configuration.
However, Wang teaches
wherein resuming the SCG comprises any one or more of: switching a primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the SCG to a non-dormant bandwidth part (BWP); and restoring a stored SCG configuration and resuming operation using one or more SCG bearers according to the restored SCG configuration (Para. [0163] - Operation 1: The terminal uses, for DC communication between the SN and the terminal, a configuration, of the SCG, that is retained when a deactivation operation is performed on the secondary cell group. That is, the terminal restores (restore) the stored configuration, of the SCG, that is used for DC; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0116-0153]; Fig. 6, Para. [0154-0181]; Fig. 7, Para. [0183-0207]; Fig. 8, Para. [0208-0227]; Fig. 9, Para. [0228-0246]; Fig. 10, Para. [0247-0266]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hu’s invention of “a communication method and a communication apparatus, to optimize a configuration of a terminal device that is used when an SCG is suspended” (Hu Para. [0005]) with Wang’s invention of “a communication method, a communications apparatus, a storage medium, and a communications system, to reduce energy consumption of a terminal and a network-side device during DC communication” (Wang Para. [0005]) because Wang’s invention provides a method for “the deactivation operation on the secondary cell group according to the indication of the master node or the secondary node, to suspend link communication of the secondary cell group, thereby reducing energy consumption of the terminal and a network side, and reducing signaling overheads without performing a secondary node release procedure” (Wang Para. [008]).
Regarding Claim 37, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claim 33.
Hu also teaches
determining that the SCG is to be resumed (Fig. 8, step 801; Para. [0219-0233] - [0219] In this embodiment of this application, by using a method shown in FIG. 8, the terminal device alternatively stops suspending the SCG, in other words, restores to a non-suspend state from a suspend state. FIG. 8 is a schematic flowchart of a communication method according to an embodiment of this application. [0220] 801: A terminal device receives second information, where the second information is used to indicate the terminal device to enter an SCG non-suspend state; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297] );
and sending, to the UE, a command to resume the SCG (Fig. 8, step 802; Para. [0219-0233] - [0226] 802: The terminal device stops suspending the SCG based on the second information; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297] ).
Claim(s) 38, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Lee and Yi (US 2016/0044744, previously presented), Lee hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 38, Hu teaches a method, in a second radio network node (RNN) serving a user equipment (UE) operating in dual connectivity (DC) with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN), for suspending the UE's operation with a secondary cell group (SCG), the method comprising (Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]):
determining that the SCG is to be suspended; and sending, to a first RNN, a request to suspend the SCG (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218] - [0161] 701: A terminal device receives first information, where the first information is used to indicate the terminal device to suspend an SCG; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]);
Yet, Hu does not expressly teach wherein determining that the SCG is to be suspended comprises any one or more of the following triggering events or conditions: detecting uplink and/or downlink inactivity concerning the SCG; detecting an overload of the SN; detecting a low load of the MN; and detecting a low total uplink and/or downlink throughput for the DC; receiving, at the first RNN, which is a first one of the MN and the SN, a request to suspend the SCG from the other one of the MN and SN.
However, Lee teaches
wherein determining that the SCG is to be suspended comprises any one or more of the following triggering events or conditions: detecting uplink and/or downlink inactivity concerning the SCG; detecting an overload of the SN; detecting a low load of the MN; and detecting a low total uplink and/or downlink throughput for the DC (Para. [0081] - With dual connectivity, some of the data radio bearers (DRBs) can be offloaded to the SCG to provide high throughput while keeping scheduling radio bearers (SRBs) or other DRBs in the MCG to reduce the handover possibility; See also Paras. [0068, 0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hu’s invention of “a communication method and a communication apparatus, to optimize a configuration of a terminal device that is used when an SCG is suspended” (Hu Para. [0005]) with Lee’s invention of “a method for deactivating SCells during SCG change procedure and a device therefor” (Lee Para. [0003]) because Lee’s invention provides a means to indicate SCG changes “while maintaining a connection with the master base station” and “deactivating the one or more SCells in the secondary BS if the PSCell is not changed by the SCG change procedure” (Lee Para. [0010]).
Regarding Claim 39, Hu in view of Lee teaches Claim 38.
Hu also teaches
wherein the second RNN is acting as the MN (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218] - [0162] It should be noted that the first information is sent by a network device. The network device may be an MN, or may be an SN. In other words, the first information may be sent by the MN, or may be sent by the SN. The MN or the SN may send the first information to the terminal device in a plurality of manners, for example, by using a MAC control element (CE), an RRC message, or indication information of L1; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297]).
Regarding Claim 40, Hu in view of Lee teaches Claim 38.
Hu also teaches
wherein the second RNN is acting as the SN (Fig. 7, step 701; Para. [0160-0218] - [0162] It should be noted that the first information is sent by a network device. The network device may be an MN, or may be an SN. In other words, the first information may be sent by the MN, or may be sent by the SN. The MN or the SN may send the first information to the terminal device in a plurality of manners, for example, by using a MAC control element (CE), an RRC message, or indication information of L1; See also Fig. 5, Para. [0144-0152]; Fig. 6, Para. [0153-0159]; Fig. 7, Para. [0160-0218]; Fig. 8, Para. [0219-0233]; Fig. 9, Para. [0234-0239]; Fig. 10, Para. [0240-0260]; Fig. 11, Para. [0261-0281]; Fig. 12, Para. [0282-0297])
Claim(s) 43 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Wang and Ali as applied to Claim 33 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 43, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claim 42.
Yet, Hu, Wang, nor Ali expressly teach wherein determining that the SCG is to be suspended is in response to any one or more of the following triggering events or conditions: detecting uplink and/or downlink inactivity concerning the SCG; detecting an overload of the SN; detecting a low load of the MN; and detecting a low total uplink and/or downlink throughput for the DC.
However, Lee teaches
wherein determining that the SCG is to be suspended is in response to any one or more of the following triggering events or conditions: detecting uplink and/or downlink inactivity concerning the SCG; detecting an overload of the SN; detecting a low load of the MN; and detecting a low total uplink and/or downlink throughput for the DC (Para. [0068] - The activation or deactivation of the secondary component carrier may be determined by a base station based on a quality of service (QoS), a load condition of carrier and other factors. And, the base station may be able to instruct a user equipment of secondary component carrier setting using a control message including such information as an indication type (activation/deactivation) for DL/UL, a secondary component carrier list and the like; See also Fig. 7, Para. [0069-0078]; Para. [0081, 0139, 0163]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein determining that the SCG is to be suspended is in response to any one or more of the following triggering events or conditions: detecting uplink and/or downlink inactivity concerning the SCG; detecting an overload of the SN; detecting a low load of the MN; and detecting a low total uplink and/or downlink throughput for the DC as taught by Lee, in the combined system of Hu/Wang/Ali, so that it would provide a means to indicate SCG changes “while maintaining a connection with the master base station” and “deactivating the one or more SCells in the secondary BS if the PSCell is not changed by the SCG change procedure” (Lee Para. [0010]).
Regarding Claim 46, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claim 33.
Yet, Hu, Wang, nor Ali expressly teach wherein determining that the SCG is to be suspended is in response to any one or more of the following triggering events or conditions: detecting uplink and/or downlink inactivity concerning the SCG; detecting an overload of the SN; detecting a low load of the MN; and detecting a low total uplink and/or downlink throughput for the DC.
However, Lee teaches
wherein determining that the SCG is to be suspended is in response to any one or more of the following triggering events or conditions: detecting uplink and/or downlink inactivity concerning the SCG; detecting an overload of the SN; detecting a low load of the MN; and detecting a low total uplink and/or downlink throughput for the DC (Para. [0068] - The activation or deactivation of the secondary component carrier may be determined by a base station based on a quality of service (QoS), a load condition of carrier and other factors. And, the base station may be able to instruct a user equipment of secondary component carrier setting using a control message including such information as an indication type (activation/deactivation) for DL/UL, a secondary component carrier list and the like; See also Fig. 7, Para. [0069-0078]; Para. [0081, 0139, 0163]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein determining that the SCG is to be suspended is in response to any one or more of the following triggering events or conditions: detecting uplink and/or downlink inactivity concerning the SCG; detecting an overload of the SN; detecting a low load of the MN; and detecting a low total uplink and/or downlink throughput for the DC as taught by Lee, in the combined system of Hu/Wang/Ali, so that it would provide a means to indicate SCG changes “while maintaining a connection with the master base station” and “deactivating the one or more SCells in the secondary BS if the PSCell is not changed by the SCG change procedure” (Lee Para. [0010]).
Claims 44 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Wang and Ali, and further in view of Palat et al. (US 2021/0282213), Palat hereinafter.
Regarding Claims 44 and 45, Hu in view of Wang and Ali teaches Claims 23 and 33.
Yet, Hu, Wang, nor Ali expressly teach wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of an MCG.
However, Palat teaches
wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of an MCG (Fig. 2, Para. [0049-0051] - [0049] FIG. 2 illustrates an EN-DC RRC signaling structure 200 that may be representative of the implementation of an RRC signaling structure according to various embodiments. As shown in FIG. 2, the RRC signaling structure 200 includes an RRC message 201 that itself includes an MCG configuration 202 and an encapsulated SCG configuration 204. The EN-DC RRC message 201 can be generated by the MN 102 (e.g., the eNB 102) from environment 100. The encapsulated SCG configuration can correspond to RRC configuration information received at MN 102, from the SN 104 (e.g., the gNB 104), for example, during an initiation of EN-DC for the environment 100; See also Fig. 3, Para. [0052-0060]; Fig. 4, Para. [0061-0067], FIGS. 6A-6D, 7A-7D, 8A-8D, 9A-9D, 10A-10D, and 11A-11D, Para. [0076-0107]; Fig. 14, Para. [0116-0120]; Para. [0191, 0209, 0210, 0227, 0228, 0243, 0244, 0256, 0257, 0263, 0264]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the RRC message comprises a configuration of an MCG as taught by Palat, in the combined system of Hu/Wang/Ali, so that it would provide a means “for unifying the split bearers at the UE 106 such that, from the perspective of UE 106, there is only one split bearer type irrespective of the location of the termination point (PDCP) in the network,” thus UE “implementations/operations can be simplified as there is a need to only consider one split bearer type” and “the number of bearer type changes needing to be supported and carried out during operation can be reduced” (Palat Para. [0048]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jung et al. (US 20230164871) Fig. 2H, Para. [0541-0543] teaches an inter-node SCG suspension/resumption procedure in which a base station may inquire of a secondary cell base station whether SCG configuration information should be suspended or resumed and determine the action based on the secondary base station’s response.
Zhang (US 20230122107) Fig. 9-10, Para. [0188-0200] teaches SCG deactivation/reactivation in dual connectivity wherein the MN determines whether to deactivate the SCG and sends a deactivation command to the SN and/or UE, with the SN thereafter deactivating the SCG related resources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAENITA ANN FENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0880. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:30 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 270-1096. 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.
/R.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights