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 Pre-Brief Appeal
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pre-Appeal Brief, filed 01/02/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under Zhou (US 20190215896 A1, cited by Applicant of Record) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen (US 20230217276 A1).
Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/25 was previously entered.
Claims 54-74 are pending.
Claims 1-53 were previously canceled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 60 and 73 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, Chen and Cirik disclose TCI states and MCG/SCG. However, Chen and Cirik do not disclose the specific limitations as recited in these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 54, 56 and 64, 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20230217276 A1).
Regarding claim 54, Zhou discloses a method for a user equipment (UE) configured to communicate with a wireless network via a master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG) [fig. 7-11], the method comprising:
entering a reduced-energy mode for the SCG responsive to receiving a first command via the MCG or the SCG (SCG suspend state from MCG and/or SCG [fig. 7 no. 704, par. 0063, 25]); and
while in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG and in a connected mode for the MCG, performing SCG measurements and reporting the SCG measurements to the wireless network (UE performs relaxed measurements on the SCG PSCell while in SCG suspended state [fig. 7 no. 706-708, par. 0064-65, 25] and reports the measurements to the network (i.e., MCG connected mode) [fig. 7 no. 710, par. 0066]).
Regarding claim 64, it is substantially similar to claim 54, except is from the perspective of the second network node and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claims 56 and 66, Zhou discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhou further discloses wherein reporting the SCG measurements while in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG is responsive to one of the following:
one or more conditions that are also applicable to reporting of SCG measurements while in the connected mode for the SCG; or
a reporting period that is greater than a reporting period for SCG measurements while in the connected mode for the SCG (Longer periodicity [par. 0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 55 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 54 and 64 respectively, and further in view of Zhou (US 20190215896 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 55 and 65, Chen discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Chen discloses the SCG includes a primary SCG cell (PSCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells) [par. 0024-25], and as discussed above, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein: the SCG measurements are reported via the PSCell; and the one or more SCells have no uplinks configured while the UE is in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Zhou.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses wherein:
the SCG measurements are reported via the PSCell (PUCCH is transmitted on PSCell [par. 0175, 185]); and
the one or more SCells have no uplinks configured while the UE is in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG [par. 0251-252].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of interworking between NR and LTE [Zhou par. 0013].
Claims 57-59, 61-63 and 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 54 and 64 respectively, and further in view of Cirik (US 20200314880 A1).
Regarding claim 57, Chen discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Chen discloses while in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG and in the connected mode for the MCG, receiving, via the MCG, … of the SCG; and upon exiting the reduced-energy mode for the SCG, monitoring the PDCCH of the SCG … [par. 0023, 64, 69], and as discussed above, Chen does not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, …, a TCI state associated with a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) …; based on the received TCI …. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Cirik.
In the same field of endeavor, Cirik discloses further comprising:
receiving, …, a TCI state associated with a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (TCI and PDCCH are “associated” [par. 0340]; and
based on the received TCI state [par. 0340].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Cirik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of differentiating between groups [Cirik Abstract].
Regarding claim 67, Chen discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Chen discloses based on the one or more reports of SCG measurements, … of the SCG; while the UE is in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG and in the connected mode for the MCG, … or to a first network node configured to provide the MCG; and after the UE exits the reduced-energy mode for the SCG, transmitting the PDCCH [par. 0023, 64, 69], and as discussed above, Chen does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining a TCI state associated with a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); … sending the TCI state to the UE; and … based on the TCI state. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Cirik.
In the same field of endeavor, Cirik discloses further comprising:
determining a TCI state associated with a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); … sending the TCI state to the UE [par. 0340]; and
… based on the TCI state [par. 0340].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Cirik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of differentiating between groups [Cirik Abstract].
Regarding claim 58, Chen and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chen and Cirik further disclose:
wherein the received TCI state [Cirki as discussed above] is different than a most recent TCI state [Cirki as discussed above] associated with the PDCCH of the SCG, wherein the most recent TCI state [Cirki as discussed above] is received before entering the reduced-energy mode for the SCG [Chen fig. 7 no. 704].
Regarding claim 68, Chen and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chen and Cirik further disclose wherein one or more of the following applies:
the TCI state [Cirki as discussed above] is different than a most recent TCI state [Cirki as discussed above] associated with the PDCCH of the SCG, the most recent TCI state [Cirki as discussed above] being sent to the UE before the UE entered the reduced-energy mode for the SCG [Chen fig. 7 no. 704]; and
the method further comprises receiving, from the first network node, a request for an updated TCI state associated with the PDCCH of the SCG, wherein sending the TCI state to the first network node in responsive to the request.
Regarding claim 59, Chen and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chen and Cirik further disclose:
further comprising receiving a second command to enter the connected mode [Cirik fig. 15 no. 1580] for the SCG [Chen, as discussed above], wherein exiting the reduced-energy mode for the SCG [Chen, as discussed above] is responsive to the second command [Cirik fig. 15 no. 1580].
Regarding claim 61, Chen and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chen and Cirik further disclose wherein:
one of the following first conditions applies:
the second command is received [Cirik, as discussed above] and the SCG measurements are reported via a same one of the MCG and the SCG [Chen fig. 7 no. 710]; or
the second command is received [Cirik, as discussed above] and the SCG measurements are reported via different ones of the MCG and the SCG [Chen fig. 7 no. 710]; and
one of the following second conditions applies:
the TCI state [Cirik as discussed above] is received and the SCG measurements are reported via a same one of the MCG and the SCG [Chen fig. 7 no. 710]; or
the TCI state [Cirik as discussed above] is received and the SCG measurements are reported via different ones of the MCG and the SCG [Chen fig. 7 no. 710].
Regarding claim 62, Chen and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chen and Cirik further disclose wherein:
the TCI state is received as a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) [Cirik par. 0340] via a PDCCH in a first cell of the SCG [Chen, as discussed above], and
the method further comprises performing one or more of the following while in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG:
refraining from monitoring PDCCH in one or more other cells of the SCG [Chen par. 0023, 64, 69]; and
monitoring a subset of the PDCCH in the first cell of the SCG based on the TCI state.
Regarding claim 63, Chen and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chen and Cirik further disclose wherein:
the TCI state is received as a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) [Cirik par. 0340] via a PDCCH in a first cell of the MCG [Chen, as discussed above]; and
the method further comprises refraining from monitoring PDCCH in one or more other cells of the MCG while in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG [Chen par. 0023, 64, 69].
Regarding claim 69, Chen and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chen and Cirik further disclose wherein one or more of the following applies:
the TCI state is sent to the UE as a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) via a [Cirik par. 0340] PDCCH in a first cell of the SCG [Chen, as discussed above];
the method further comprises refraining from transmitting PDCCH to the UE in one or more other cells of the SCG while the UE is in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG [Chen par. 0024-25]; and
the TCI state is sent in a subset of the PDCCH [Cirik par. 0343-344] in the first cell of the SCG [Chen, as discussed above].
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zhou.
Regarding claim 70, it is substantially similar to claim 54, except is from the perspective of the first network node, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Although Chen discloses sending, to the UE via the MCG a command … for the SCG, including a fast return to DC [par. 0026], as discussed above, Chen does not explicitly disclose a command to enter the connected mode. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Zhou.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses:
a command to enter the connected mode (The MCG starts the process of activating the SCG [fig. 9 no. 600, par. 0167]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of interworking between NR and LTE [Zhou par. 0013].
Claims 71-72, 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Zhou as applied to claim 70 above, and further in view of Cirik (US 20200314880 A1).
Regarding claim 71, Chen and Zhou disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Chen discloses while the UE is in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG and in the connected mode for the MCG, … via the MCG … of the SCG [par. 0023, 64, 69], and as discussed above, Chen and Zhou do not explicitly disclose further comprising: sending, …, to the UE, …, a TCI state associated with a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH). However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Cirik.
In the same field of endeavor, Cirik discloses further comprising,
sending, to the UE, …, a TCI state associated with a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (TCI and PDCCH are “associated” [par. 0340].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Zhou with Cirik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of differentiating between groups [Cirik Abstract].
Regarding claim 72, Chen, Zhou, and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhou and Cirik further disclose further comprising one of the following:
receiving the TCI state [Cirik par. 0340] from a second network node configured to provide the SCG [Zhou as discussed above]; or
determining the TCI state based on the received reports [Cirik par. 0340] of SCG measurements [Zhou as discussed above].
Regarding claim 74, Chen, Zhou, and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhou and Cirik further disclose wherein one or more of the following applies:
the TCI state and the command are sent concurrently;
the TCI state is sent as a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) [Cirik par. 0340] via a PDCCH in a first cell of the MCG [Zhou as discussed above]; and
the method further comprises refraining from transmitting PDCCH to the UE in one or more other cells of the MCG while the UE is in the reduced-energy mode for the SCG.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights