DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
2. This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendments filed 09/30/2025.
a) Claims 1-6, 10-15, 17-18 and 20-22 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, and 20-22 have been amended, claims 7-8 and 19 have been canceled, and claims 2-3, 5-6, 12-13, 15, 17-18 were previously presented.
b) The objection to the claims is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that
Henttonen does not explicitly disclose “a first carrier aggregation configuration selected from one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by a master node". (Page 8, Remarks).
In response to A) the examiner respectfully disagrees. Henttonen explicitly discloses at claim 21, lines 7-12, the first network node (MN) identify a radio configuration which includes the CA and indices (as shown in Fig. 4) for dual connectivity that supported by the first node based on the UE capability. [0040] the master node (LTE eNB) identified the desired configuration, including CA configuration, based on its own supported configurations and the (LTE) UE capabilities from a list of CA configurations, which is described in Step2 and 3 in Fig. 2. Figure 4 and [0053], shows the CA configurations for 410 and 430 as a first and second nodes (master and secondary nodes) of the UE, “FIG. 4 shows an example of how a linkage 420 between LTE (and/or another RAT) configurations 430 and NR configurations 410 is contained in UE capabilities. The supported LTE and NR combinations are matched for different CAs and indexes.” The figure shows how specified LTE (first node) band combinations are linked by 420 to corresponding NR (second node) band, for example, CA_1A Index=1 supports NR combinations 1, 2, and 3, CA_1A_41A, index=2 supports NR combinations 1 and 3, etc., where the indices act as reference to identify compatible configurations between LTE and NR [0054]. Therefore, Henttonen still teaches the limitations as currently claimed.
Henttonen does not explicitly disclose "a second carrier aggregation configuration selected from one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the secondary node.” (Page 8, Remarks).
In response to B) the examiner respectfully disagrees. Henttonen explicitly discloses at [0074], Fig. 5b, Step 550, shows after receiving by a second node from the first node information about the UE capabilities and the at least one CA configuration of the first node for dual connectivity with the UE, then “Then as shown in step 560 there is choosing by the second network node one or more radio configurations of the at least one radio configuration for the dual connectivity, wherein the chosen one or more radio configurations is based on configurations of the at least one radio configuration that are also supported by the second network node”, Step 6 in Fig. 2 also confirm that. Therefore, Henttonen still teaches the limitations as currently claimed.
Henttonen does not explicitly disclose “the second message indicates a second configuration for the dual connectivity” (Page 9, Remarks).
In response to C) the examiner respectfully disagrees. Henttonen explicitly discloses at claim 26, lines 12-19, “choose by the second network node one or more radio configurations of the at least one radio configuration for the dual connectivity, wherein the chosen one or more radio configurations is based on configurations of the at least one radio configuration that are also supported by the second network node; and send the chosen one or more radio configurations towards the first network node for use in the dual connectivity.” which confirm the second message sent by the MN for indicate the second configuration for the SN and then send the selected configuration to the MN for DC,“ and states in Step 570 in Fig 5b. Therefore, Henttonen still teaches the limitations as currently claimed.
Applicant argues that the remaining claims, dependent claims are allowable for similar reasons (Pages 9-10, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, for at least the same reasons given in the response above, and as detailed in the Claim Rejections section below.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henttonen et al. (US-20190246286-A1), as PCT field on Oct. 20, 2017 and published on Aug. 8, 2019.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Henttonen teaches A method performed by a first network node ([0021], lines 1-4,Fig. 1 shows the method performed by NR 22 which can be any kind of network node(base station) such as eNB), comprising determining a first configuration for dual connectivity of a terminal device
supported by the first network node (claim 21, lines 7-12, the first network node (master node) determines a radio configuration for dual connectivity that supported by the first node based on the UE capability) and a first performance evaluation of the first configuration ([0040] and [0067], the first node identified desired configuration based on the UE capabilities which may include properties and constraints of the LTE configuration ( e.g., identify expected LTE throughput and/or usage of resources); and transmitting a first message to a second network node, wherein the first message indicates the first configuration and the first performance evaluation ([ 0072], lines 11-16, Fig. 5a, the second node receives the first configuration from the first node including the properties and constraints [0041]), wherein the first network node is configured to be a master node of the terminal device, and the second network node is configured to be a secondary node of the terminal device ([0006], lines 4-7, and [0030], lines 2-6, “both an LTE (or other RAT) and New Radio networks are present and work in a dual connectivity mode (tight interworking) whereby UEs use a Master-eNB that is part of the LTE network and a Secondary-eNB that is part of the New Radio network. “, both of them support the UE for DC as shown in Fig. 2); receiving a second message from the secondary node, wherein the second message indicates a second configuration for the dual connectivity of the terminal device (claim 26, lines 12-19, “choose by the second network node one or more radio configurations of the at least one radio configuration for the dual connectivity, wherein the chosen one or more radio configurations is based on configurations of the at least one radio configuration that are also supported by the second network node; and send the chosen one or more radio configurations towards the first network node for use in the dual connectivity.” which confirm the second message sent by the MN for indicate the second configuration for the SN and then send the selected configuration to the MN for DC,“ and states in Step 570 in Fig 5b) and a second performance evaluation of the second configuration ([0045], describe “The (NR) secondary node indicates the one or more chosen (NR) configurations and their reference indications to the master node, and may indicate properties and constraints of each of the reference indications (e.g., expected NR throughput and/or usage of L1/L2 resources)”, where the throughput and usage of L1/L2 resources are part of performance evaluation of the configuration as shown in Step 8, Fig. 2), and wherein the second configuration is determined by the secondary node based at least in part on the first configuration ([0043], states “Based on the one or more (LTE) configuration reference indications received from (LTE) master node, the (NR) secondary node determines the set of available configurations for the (NR) secondary radio access configuration by using the information within the received (NR) UE capabilities and chooses one or more configuration indices to indicate to (LTE) master node, and may also identify properties and constraints of the NR configuration (e.g., expected NR throughput and/or usage of L1/L2 resources);”as also shown in Step 6, Fig. 2): wherein the second configuration includes: a first carrier aggregation configuration selected from one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the master node (claim 21, lines 7-12, the first network node (MN) identify a radio configuration which includes the CA and indices (as shown in Fig. 4) for dual connectivity that supported by the first node based on the UE capability. [0040] the master node (LTE eNB) identified the desired configuration, including CA configuration, based on its own supported configurations and the (LTE) UE capabilities from a list of CA configurations, which is described in Step2 and 3 in Fig. 2. Figure 4 and [0053], shows the CA configurations for 410 and 430 as a first and second nodes (master and secondary nodes) of the UE, “FIG. 4 shows an example of how a linkage 420 between LTE (and/or another RAT) configurations 430 and NR configurations 410 is contained in UE capabilities. The supported LTE and NR combinations are matched for different CAs and indexes.” The figure shows how specified LTE (first node) band combinations are linked by 420 to corresponding NR (second node) band, for example, CA_1A Index=1 supports NR combinations 1, 2, and 3, CA_1A_41A, index=2 supports NR combinations 1 and 3, etc., where the indices act as reference to identify compatible configurations between LTE and NR [0054].): and a second carrier aggregation configuration selected from one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the secondary node ([0074], Fig. 5b, Step 550, shows after receiving by a second node from the first node information about the UE capabilities and the at least one CA configuration of the first node for dual connectivity with the UE, then “Then as shown in step 560 there is choosing by the second network node one or more radio configurations of the at least one radio configuration for the dual connectivity, wherein the chosen one or more radio configurations is based on configurations of the at least one radio configuration that are also supported by the second network node”, Step 6 in Fig. 2 also confirm that): wherein the one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the secondary node are associated with the one or more carrier aggregations supported by the master node ([Fig. 4, [0071], step 550 in Fig. 5b, [0074], lines 1-14, “there is configuring the tight internetworking based on the chosen at least one radio configuration; and sending to the user equipment the chosen at least one radio configuration for use with dual connectivity configuration of the user equipment to the first network node and a second network node “and [0082] states “one or more radio configurations supported by the first network node and the second network node. Then at step 595 there is means for applying (RX 21E, DP 21A, PROG 21C, MEM 21B as in FIG. 1) the one or more radio supported configurations for dual connectivity with the first network node and the second network node”, these sections confirm the association between the CA configurations of the first and second nodes).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Henttonen teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first configuration includes one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the first network node (([0052], lines 7-11, [0053] and Fig. 4 illustrates the carrier aggregation (CA) configuration supported by the first node with their associated indices).
Regarding claim 3 (Previously Presented), Henttonen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first performance evaluation includes one or more throughput evaluations for one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the first network node (Fig. 2, Steps 2,3, and 4, [0036], [0067], the throughput of the CA assessment identified of at least one of the first network node and second network node).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Henttonen teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first configuration indicates at least one of:
one or more band combinations that are allowed for the dual connectivity of the terminal device by the first network node; ([0040], Fig. 2, Step 2, Fig. 4 , [0035], lines 4-6, the configuration include supported LTE and NR combinations decided by the first node, the band combinations are linked to CA configurations) and one or more feature sets that are associated with the one or more band combinations (Fig. 4 and [0056], the combinations with their respective indices which are considered as a feature set tied to the band combinations [0033] , lines 4-8, [0034], lines 1-8, and [0053], lines 3-6]);
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Henttonen teaches The method according to claim 4, wherein the first performance evaluation indicates carrier aggregation throughput evaluated for each of the one or more band combinations and the associated one or more feature sets (Fig. 2, Steps 3 and 6, [0036], [0067], the throughput of the CA assessment identified of at least one of the first network node and second network node. Fig. 3 shows how each band combination is associated (tagged) with a list of indices and supported band lists for suitable dual connectivity [0052] and [0034], lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Henttonen teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the second performance evaluation includes a total throughput evaluation associated with a first throughput evaluation and a second throughput evaluation ([0067] and Step 10 in Fig. 2 describes how the first/ master node MN determines the final configuration based on the chosen configuration from the second node and the properties and constraints or data throughput information (included in the indices [0034], lines 1-6). Fig. 4 and [0053], also illustrates how supported LTE and NR combinations are matched, showing the second network node evaluated its CA configurations to ensure compatibility/matching with the configurations provided by the first node), and wherein the first throughput evaluation is for the first carrier aggregation configuration supported by the first network node (Step 2 in Fig. 2, [0067] and [0040], the master node (first node) identifies desired configurations based on the UE capabilities, which include properties such as expected throughput and usage of resources), and the second throughput evaluation is for the second carrier aggregation configuration supported by the second network node (Step 6 in Fig 2, [0043] and [0045], the secondary node ( second network node) determines the set of available configurations for its radio access configuration based on the information received from the master node, which includes evaluating properties such as expected throughput and usage of resources).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Henttonen teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the second configuration indicates at least one of:
a band combination selected from one or more band combinations which are allowed for the dual connectivity of the terminal device by both the first network node and the second network node ( Step 560 in Fig. 5b and [ 0074], as shown in step 560 there is choosing by the second network node one or more radio configurations (the second configuration) of the at least one radio configuration for the dual connectivity, wherein the chosen configuration(s) are also supported for both the first and second network node); and a feature set associated with the selected band combination (Fig. 4 shows the combinations of CAs and their respective indices for both nodes which are considered as a feature set tied to the band combinations, [0033], lines 4-8 and [0053], lines 3-6]).
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Henttonen teaches wherein the first message is: an addition request message for the secondary node of the terminal device ([0039] and [0070], request message by the first network to initiate the process of coordinating configurations between the MN and SN to enable the DC for the UE); or
a modification request message for the secondary node of the terminal device.
Regarding claim 22 (Currently Amended), Henttonen teaches A first network node, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories comprising computer program codes, the one or more memories and the computer program codes configured to, with the one or more processors ([0021] and Fig. 1, describe the network node includes a controller, such as at least one computer or a data processor, at least one computer-readable memory medium embodied as a memory (MEM) that stores a program of computer instructions), cause the first network node at least to: determine a first configuration for dual connectivity of a terminal device supported by the first network node (claim 21, lines 7-12, the first network node (master node) determines a radio configuration for dual connectivity that supported by the first node based on the UE capability) and a first performance evaluation of the first configuration ([0040] and [0067], the first node identified desired configuration based on the UE capabilities which may include properties and constraints of the LTE configuration ( e.g., identify expected LTE throughput and/or usage of resources); and transmit a first message to a second network node, wherein the first message indicates the first configuration and the first performance evaluation ([ 0072], lines 11-16, Fig. 5a, the second node receives the first configuration from the first node including the properties and constraints [0041]), wherein the first network node is configured to be a master node of the terminal device, and the second network node is configured to be a secondary node of the terminal device ([0006], lines 4-7, and [0030], lines 2-6, “both an LTE (or other RAT) and New Radio networks are present and work in a dual connectivity mode (tight interworking) whereby UEs use a Master-eNB that is part of the LTE network and a Secondary-eNB that is part of the New Radio network. “, both of them support the UE for DC as shown in Fig. 2); receiving a second message from the secondary node, wherein the second message indicates a second configuration for the dual connectivity of the terminal device (claim 26, lines 12-19, “choose by the second network node one or more radio configurations of the at least one radio configuration for the dual connectivity, wherein the chosen one or more radio configurations is based on configurations of the at least one radio configuration that are also supported by the second network node; and send the chosen one or more radio configurations towards the first network node for use in the dual connectivity.” which confirm the second message sent by the MN for indicate the second configuration for the SN and then send the selected configuration to the MN for DC,“ and states in Step 570 in Fig 5b) and a second performance evaluation of the second configuration ([0045], describe “The (NR) secondary node indicates the one or more chosen (NR) configurations and their reference indications to the master node, and may indicate properties and constraints of each of the reference indications (e.g., expected NR throughput and/or usage of L1/L2 resources)”, where the throughput and usage of L1/L2 resources are part of performance evaluation of the configuration as shown in Step 8, Fig. 2), and wherein the second configuration is determined by the secondary node based at least in part on the first configuration ([0043], states “Based on the one or more (LTE) configuration reference indications received from (LTE) master node, the (NR) secondary node determines the set of available configurations for the (NR) secondary radio access configuration by using the information within the received (NR) UE capabilities and chooses one or more configuration indices to indicate to (LTE) master node, and may also identify properties and constraints of the NR configuration (e.g., expected NR throughput and/or usage of L1/L2 resources);”as also shown in Step 6, Fig. 2): wherein the second configuration includes: a first carrier aggregation configuration selected from one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the master node (claim 21, lines 7-12, the first network node (MN) identify a radio configuration which includes the CA and indices (as shown in Fig. 4) for dual connectivity that supported by the first node based on the UE capability. [0040] the master node (LTE eNB) identified the desired configuration, including CA configuration, based on its own supported configurations and the (LTE) UE capabilities from a list of CA configurations, which is described in Step2 and 3 in Fig. 2. Figure 4 and [0053], shows the CA configurations for 410 and 430 as a first and second nodes (master and secondary nodes) of the UE, “FIG. 4 shows an example of how a linkage 420 between LTE (and/or another RAT) configurations 430 and NR configurations 410 is contained in UE capabilities. The supported LTE and NR combinations are matched for different CAs and indexes.” The figure shows how specified LTE (first node) band combinations are linked by 420 to corresponding NR (second node) band, for example, CA_1A Index=1 supports NR combinations 1, 2, and 3, CA_1A_41A, index=2 supports NR combinations 1 and 3, etc., where the indices act as reference to identify compatible configurations between LTE and NR [0054]): and a second carrier aggregation configuration selected from one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the secondary node ([0074], Fig. 5b, Step 550, shows after receiving by a second node from the first node information about the UE capabilities and the at least one CA configuration of the first node for dual connectivity with the UE, then “Then as shown in step 560 there is choosing by the second network node one or more radio configurations of the at least one radio configuration for the dual connectivity, wherein the chosen one or more radio configurations is based on configurations of the at least one radio configuration that are also supported by the second network node”, Step 6 in Fig. 2 also confirm that): wherein the one or more carrier aggregation configurations supported by the secondary node are associated with the one or more carrier aggregations supported by the master node ([Fig. 4, [0071], step 550 in Fig. 5b, [0074], lines 1-14, “there is configuring the tight internetworking based on the chosen at least one radio configuration; and sending to the user equipment the chosen at least one radio configuration for use with dual connectivity configuration of the user equipment to the first network node and a second network node “and [0082] states “one or more radio configurations supported by the first network node and the second network node. Then at step 595 there is means for applying (RX 21E, DP 21A, PROG 21C, MEM 21B as in FIG. 1) the one or more radio supported configurations for dual connectivity with the first network node and the second network node”, these sections confirm the association between the CA configurations of the first and second nodes).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henttonen et al. (US-20190246286-A1) in view of Takada et al. (WO 2020170403 Al).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Henttonen teaches the method according to claim 5.
Henttonen does not explicitly teach wherein the carrier aggregation throughput evaluated for each of the one or more band combinations and the associated one or more feature sets is highest throughput evaluated for carrier aggregation configurations corresponding to each of the one or more band combinations and the associated one or more feature sets.
However, Takada teaches wherein the carrier aggregation throughput evaluated for each of the one or more band combinations and the associated one or more feature sets is highest throughput evaluated for carrier aggregation configurations corresponding to each of the one or more band combinations and the associated one or more feature sets ([0081] and [0082), describes calculate a theoretical throughput for each CA band combination on the basis of a plurality of theoretical throughput associated with some features to select a CA band combination in which the calculated theoretical throughput becomes maximum (efficiently selected)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henttonen to incorporate the teachings of Takada (in analogous art) by selecting the one or more band combinations and the associated one or more feature sets that have highest throughput evaluating to optimize the use of frequency bands, MIMO layers, and the bandwidth (Takada, [0081]).
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henttonen et al. (US-20190246286-A1) in view of Van Der Velde et al. (US 2019/0281645 Al).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Henttonen teaches the method according to claim 11.
Henttonen further teaches wherein the first carrier aggregation throughput is evaluated by the first network node for the selected band combination and the associated feature set ([0040] and Step 3 in Fig. 2, the first node identifies the desired configurations, including the throughput and usage of resources (associated features) based on UE capabilities ), and the second carrier aggregation throughput is evaluated by the second network node for the selected band combination and the associated feature set (Step 6 in Fig. 2 and [0043], lines 13-21, the secondary node and may also identify properties and constraints of the NR configuration (e.g., expected NR throughput and usage of resources).
Henttonen does not explicitly teach, wherein the second performance evaluation indicates total carrier aggregation throughput associated with a first carrier aggregation throughput and a second carrier aggregation throughput.
However, Van Der Velde teaches wherein the second performance evaluation indicates total carrier aggregation throughput associated with a first carrier aggregation throughput and a second carrier aggregation throughput, ([0254], Fig. 20, shows a table setting where the total throughput for DC is influenced by the throughput of the individual configuration, such as the first and the second Cas and their ability to coexist without conflicts. Figs. 17 and 19, [0231]-[0251] shows examples on how the different options of combinations from the first and second nodes can be selected according to the total throughput).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henttonen to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Velde (in analogous art) by including the second performance evaluation indicates total carrier aggregation throughput associated with a first carrier aggregation throughput and a second carrier aggregation throughput to achieve the optimal performance of dual connectivity between two different network nodes in the wireless communications (Van Der Velde, [0007], lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented), Henttonen teaches the method according to claim 11.
Henttonen further teaches which are allowed for the dual connectivity of the terminal device by both the first network node and the second network node (Step 560 in Fig. 5b and [ 0074], as shown in step 560 there is choosing by the second network node one or more radio configurations (the second configuration) of the at least one radio configuration for the dual connectivity, wherein the chosen configuration(s) are also supported for both the first and second network node).
Henttonen does not explicitly teach wherein the selected band combination and the associated feature set have highest total carrier aggregation throughput, among the one or more band combinations and associated feature sets
However, Van Der Velde teaches wherein the selected band combination and the associated feature set have highest total carrier aggregation throughput, among the one or more band combinations and associated feature sets ([0037], [0175], lines 1-4, the master node MN and the secondary node SN negotiate configurations based on the throughput evaluations of CA to ensure that the final configurations maximizes throughput with considering the UE capabilities. The method evaluates multiple options with multiple bands and selects the one with highest throughput [0227], as shown in Figs. 17-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henttonen to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Velde (in analogous art) by including the selected band combination and the associated feature set have highest total carrier aggregation throughput, among the one or more band combinations and associated feature sets to achieve the optimal performance of dual connectivity between two different network nodes in the wireless communications (Van Der Velde, [0007], lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Henttonen teaches the method according to claim 1.
Henttonen does not explicitly teach determining whether to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device, according to the second message.
However, Van Der Velde teaches determining whether to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device, according to the second message, ([0022]-[0026], determining by a first network node MN uses the UE capability information and the second measurement report from the SN to decide whether DC can be established. Table 1 describes the 4 possible deployment options for DC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henttonen to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Velde (in analogous art) by determining whether to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device, according to the second message to ensure that the UE is not configured beyond its capabilities, co-ordination is required between the nodes involved in DC (Van Der Velde, [0007], lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented), Henttonen and Van Der Velde teach the method according to claim 14.
Henttonen does not explicitly teach determining a third performance evaluation with the dual connectivity of the terminal device being inactive; and comparing the second performance evaluation with the third performance evaluation; wherein the third performance evaluation includes a throughput evaluation of a current configuration for the terminal device by the first network node.
However, Van Der Velde teaches determining a third performance evaluation with the dual connectivity of the terminal device being inactive ([0188], lines 1-5, Consider the case where the MN initiates a conflicting MCG reconfiguration, (e.g., adding of a 4G cell requiring the release of a 5G cell), which means the UE is connected only to MCG (being inactive), the performance evaluation based on the MCG only (throughput gain)); and comparing the second performance evaluation with the third performance evaluation (Fig. 18, [0188], lines 5-10, [0227], [0228], lines 6-8, compare the difference between the two options, performance evaluation of the (MCG-only throughput) and the second performance of the (MCG+SCG throughput), e.g., the network evaluates whether the throughput gain from the MCG and the throughput loss involved with SCG, [0229]); wherein the third performance evaluation includes a throughput evaluation of a current configuration for the terminal device by the first network node ([0188], lines 1-5, consider the case where the MN initiates a conflicting MCG reconfiguration, the MN indicates the throughput gain (delta) it can achieve with the conflicting MCG reconfiguration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henttonen to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Velde (in analogous art) by comparing the second performance evaluation with the third performance evaluation to improve overall efficiency and user experience (Van Der Velde, [0037]).
Regarding claim 17 (Previously Presented), Henttonen and Van Der Velde teach the method according to claim 15.
Henttonen does not explicitly teach wherein the first network node determines to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device, when a result of the comparison meets a predetermined criterion.
However, Van Der Velde teaches wherein the first network node determines to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device ([0024], [0158], lines 1-2, [0077], lines 1-6, the MN ensures the configuration aligns with the UE capabilities and finalizes the DC setup), when a result of the comparison meets a predetermined criterion ([0081], lines 3-6, [0113] and [0084], the MN sets a minimum criteria that must be met for the SN to configure the conflicting Secondary Cell Group SCG).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henttonen to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Velde (in analogous art) by adding wherein the first network node determines to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device when a result of the comparison meets a predetermined criterion to ensure that the network achieves optimal performance while respecting the capabilities of the UE (Van Der Velde, [0008], lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 18 (Previously Presented), Henttonen and Van Der Velde teach the method according to claim 14.
Henttonen does not explicitly teach setting up the dual connectivity of the terminal device according to the second configuration, when determining to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device.
However, Van Der Velde teaches setting up the dual connectivity of the terminal device according to the second configuration, when determining to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device ([0024]-[0027], describe the process of the set up the DC of the UE, the process outlines how the MN and SN collaborate to set up the DC based on the second configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henttonen to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Velde (in analogous art) by adding setting up the dual connectivity of the terminal device according to the second configuration, when determining to set up the dual connectivity of the terminal device to ensure that the network achieves optimal performance while respecting the capabilities of the UE (Van Der Velde, [0008], lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 21 (Currently Amended), Henttonen teaches the method according to claim 1.
Henttonen does not explicitly teach wherein the second message is: an addition request acknowledge message for the secondary node of the terminal device; a modification request acknowledge message for the secondary node of the terminal device; or a modification required message for the secondary node of the terminal device.
However, Van Der Velde teaches wherein the second message is: an addition request acknowledge message for a secondary node of the terminal device (Fig. 3 [0102] and Fig. 10 illustrates the SN Addition Request Ack (list of conflicting configurations); a modification request acknowledge message for the secondary node of the terminal device ([0204], Fig. 4, shows the second message is the SN modification request Ack message); or a modification required message for the secondary node of the terminal device ([0116] and Fig. 7 illustrates an SN modification required (List of conflicting configurations requested to add /Achievable criterion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henttonen to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Velde (in analogous art) by adding second message such as an addition request acknowledge message for a secondary node of the terminal device; a modification request acknowledge message for the secondary node of the terminal device; or a modification required message for the secondary node of the terminal device to provide assistance information about the potentially conflicting SCG configuration for achievable throughput (Van Der Velde, [0182], lines 3-6).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
VAN DER VELDE et al. (US-20200077385-A1), HONG et al. (US-20200367085-A1), Cirik et al. (US-11632758-B2), HOSSEINI et al. (US-20210250753-A1), Chen et al. (US-20170279580-A1), PALM et al. (WO-2015142248-A1) and ZACHARIAS et al. (WO-2018169663-A1) teach methods involved in optimizing the process of the Dual connectivity in the communication networks.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANAA AL SAMAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 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.
/SANAA AL SAMAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights