DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The second non-final office action is being issued in view of withdraw of 112 rejection of the last office action in which no prior art rejection was provided and 112 rejection is withdrawn based on claim amendments.
Claim status
Claims 3, 6-7, and 18 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 16, 18-19, 21, 23-25, 29-30, 34, and 36 are pending for examination.
Response to arguments
Re: 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection
Based on amendment to the claims, 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection is withdrawn.
Re: 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(c)
Applicant’s argument has been considered. In the present office action, instead of using US publication, prior art used is the WIPO publication which predates the effective filing date of the claimed invention avoiding 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(c) exception rule.
Re: 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues: “It should be noted, however, that a secondary cell group release procedure is not a reconfiguration procedure for a second cell group. A release procedure terminates a connection, while a reconfiguration modifies or adds a connection”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. a reconfiguration procedure is not only modification or adding a connection, it may also release a connection. This was also described in the specification, Pg.22, “the UE may receive an indication from the network (e.g. an RRC Reconfiguration message with an MR-DC release indication) indicating that the SCG remains suspended or the SCG has to be released.”.
Applicant’s arguments related to amended claims are moot in view of currently used prior arts that were not used in the last office action.
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 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18-19, 21, 23-25, 29-30, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUGELAND et al. (WO 2020/065622 A1), supported by provisional application No. 62/737,656, hereinafter “Rugeland”, in view of R2-1914364, “Further discussion on suspension of SCG”, Source: Qualcomm, Incorporated hereinafter “Qcomm”.
Regarding claim 1, Rugeland teaches a method performed by a wireless device configured with Multi-Radio Access Technology Dual Connectivity (MR-DC) (Rugeland: [Abstract] “A method is provided by a wireless device for performing reconfiguration and/or resumption of a radio resource control, RRC, connections while operating in a Multi-RAT Dual Connectivity, MR-DC or standalone New Radio, NR, environment.”) for a first cell group and a second cell group (Rugeland: [Abstract] “The method further includes receiving an indication to perform one of: releasing a master cell group and perform a configuration on at least one of one or more radio bearer configurations and a secondary cell group configuration; or releasing configurations for a master cell group and a secondary cell group”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first network node, at least one message in a reconfiguration procedure for the second cell group (Rugeland: Fig.10, step 1013, “Receiving a reconfiguration indication to release the master cell group and perform the configuration on at least one of one or more radio bearer configurations and a secondary cell group configuration”); and
the at least one message indicating a mode of operation of the wireless device for the second cell group after the reconfiguration procedure for the second cell group has been applied by the wireless device (Rugeland: Fig.10, step 1017, “Performing the configuration on the at least one of the one or more radio bearer configurations and the secondary cell group configuration”),
Rugeland describes in § 5.3.5.4, as part of secondary cell group release procedure, the steps,
2> stop timer T310 for the corresponding SpCell, if running;
2> stop timer T304 for the corresponding SpCell, if running (mentioned also in [0177] and [0178].
Rugeland however does not expressly teach but, Qcomm in the same field of endeavor teaches, the mode of operation of the wireless device for the second cell group comprising a mode of operation of the wireless device for one or both of a special cell of the second cell group and one or more other cells of the second cell group (Qcomm:
Observation 4: In MR-DC (including LTE-DC, EN-DC and NR-DC), PSCell in SCG is never deactivated, i.e. it is always active when SN is added.
Proposal 1: PSCell under suspension of SCG works in activated state.
Then for the UE behaviour in PSCell ·when the SCG is suspended, we think we have two alternatives:
" Ait-1: Also put PSCell in dormancy when SCG is suspended
" Ait-2: Configure deep URX for PSCell when SCG is suspended
Proposal 2: In suspended SCG, the UE: behavior is:
. SCells can follow the agreed SCell dormancy behavior;
. PSCell is configured with deep DRX ; The claim is implied by these Qcomm disclosures;
PSCell of the SCG may also be referred to as a special cell (SpCell)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosures by Qcomm with that of Rugeland and come up with the claimed invention motivated by low latency serving cell configuration/activation/setup, as disclosed by Qcomm in § 1.
Regarding claim 3, combination of Rugeland and Qcomm teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Rugeland does not expressly teach but Qcomm teaches the claim, wherein the mode of operation of the wireless device for the second cell group a power saving mode of operation of the wireless device for one or more of the second cell group, a special cell of the second cell group (Qcomm: Observation 1: One intention to introduce suspended SCG is power saving of SCG; Proposal 2: In suspended SCG, the UE: behavior is:
· SCells can follow the agreed SCell dormancy behavior;
· PSCell is configured with deep DRX ) ;
a special cell of the second cell group; and
one or more other cells of the second cell group,
wherein the power saving mode comprises a suspend mode or dormant mode or deactivated mode or inactivated mode of operation (suspended mode is discussed above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosures by Qcomm with that of Rugeland and come up with the claimed invention motivated by power saving as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, combination of Rugeland and Qcomm teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Some of the options from the claim, comprising operating the second cell group according to the power saving mode of operation after reconfiguring the second cell group according to the reconfiguration procedure, wherein operating the second cell group according to the power saving mode of operation after reconfiguring the second cell group according to the reconfiguration procedure comprises at least one of:
operating a special cell of the second cell group in a dormant mode;
operating the special cell of the second cell group in a suspended mode;
operating the special cell of the second cell group in a deactivated mode;
operating the special cell of the second cell group in an inactivated mode;
operating the special cell of the second cell group in a dormant bandwidth part (BWP);
stopping monitoring a PDCCH of the one of both of the special cell and at least one other cell of the second cell group;
suspending transmission for data radio bearers (DRBs) associated with the second cell group;
suspending transmission for DRBs associated with a special cell of the second cell group;
suspending transmission for DRBs terminated at a node associated with the second cell group or one or both of a special cell and at least one other cell of the second cell group;
suspending DRBs associated with the second cell group;
operating the special cell of the second cell group according to discontinuous reception (DRX); and
monitoring a PDCCH on the second cell group only during configured on durations of a DRX cycle for one or both of the second cell group and at least one cell of the second cell group, has been discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, combination of Rugeland and Qcomm teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Rugeland does not expressly teach, but Qcomm teaches the claim, wherein a previous mode of operation of the wireless device for the second cell group before receiving the at least one message comprises the power saving mode of operation, and the method comprises performing the reconfiguration procedure in response to receiving a command from the first network node to activate, reactivate or resume the second cell group after receiving the at least one message (Qcomm: Fig.1 discloses the method of activation (step 9) after it was suspended (step 3); suspension is equivalent to power save mode as discussed earlier).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Rugeland and Qcomm teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the mode of operation of the wireless device for the second cell group comprises a resumed, normal, legacy or active mode (Rugeland: [0207] and [0209] discloses reconfiguration and resume operation).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Rugeland and Qcomm teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), comprising one or both of operating the second cell group according to the mode of operation indicated in the at least one message, and performing the reconfiguration procedure for the second cell group (Mode of operation is disclosed in Rugeland: [Abstract] “The method includes suspending the wireless device to an inactive mode. The method further includes resuming operation of the wireless device from the inactive mode.”; See also Fig.13, steps 1301 and 1303).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Rugeland and Qcomm teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein:
the first cell group comprises a master cell group (MCG) and the second cell group comprises a secondary cell group (SCG); or
the second cell group comprises a master cell group (MCG) and the first cell group comprises a secondary cell group (SCG) (Rugeland: [Abstract] “The method further includes receiving an indication to perform one of: releasing a master cell group and perform a configuration on at least one of one or more radio bearer configurations and a secondary cell group configuration; or releasing configurations for a master cell group and a secondary cell group”). Also disclosed by Qcomm in § 7.6, “In DC. the configured set of serving cells for a UE consists of two subsets: the Master Cell Group (MCG) containing the serving cells of the MeNB and the Secondary Cell Group (SCG) containing the serving cells of the SeNB.”
Claim 16 is for a method in a network device performing complementary functions of the method of claim 1.
Claim 34 is for wireless device implementing method of claim 1. The claim is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Claim elements are discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 36 is for a network node performing method of claim 16. Complementary methods are discussed above in claim 1.
Claim elements of claims 18-19, 21, 23-25, and 29-30 are discussed above in claims dependent on claim 1.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Rugeland and Qcomm as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0047744 A1), hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding claim 6, combination of Rugeland and Qcomm teaches the method of claim 5 (discussed above).
Combination of Rugeland and Qcomm however fails to teach, wherein the at least one message includes an indication of whether to perform the reconfiguration procedure immediately or in response to subsequently receiving a command from the first network node to activate, reactivate or resume the second cell group.
Wu in the same field of endeavor teaches conditional reconfiguration, “(i) a conditional configuration related to a base station operating in the RAN, and (ii) a condition to be satisfied before the UE applies the conditional configuration during one of a conditional secondary node (SN) change or addition procedure or a conditional primary secondary cell (PScell) change or addition procedure; determining instructing, by the processing hardware and subsequently to the transmitting, the UE to unconditionally perform an immediate procedure related to the RAN” (Clm.1), and [0239-0240].
Disclosure in Wu provides a mechanism to check for a condition to be satisfied and also immediate execution as per the configuration through a subsequent message.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the idea of the claimed invention based on disclosure by Wu to modify it by including an indication in the reconfiguration whether to apply it immediately or wait for a subsequent message after the base station checks for some condition itself, e.g. receiving from a target base station, an acknowledgement message, as described in Clm.6 of Wu.
Regarding claim 7, combination of Rugeland, Qcomm, and Wu teaches the method of claim 6 (discussed above).
Regarding the claim, performing the reconfiguration procedure immediately if the indication is to perform the reconfiguration procedure immediately; and performing the reconfiguration procedure in response to subsequently receiving a command from the first network node to activate, reactivate or resume the second cell group, after receiving the at least one message, if the indication is to perform the reconfiguration procedure in response to subsequently receiving a command from the first network node to activate, reactivate or resume the second cell group, is obvious based on the discussion above in claim 6 and disclosure by Qcomm as discussed above in claim 6 and claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11490282-B2 discloses methods and apparatus for accessing New Radio (NR) services in a multi-RAT dual connectivity (DC).;
US-20230284113-A1 discloses methods and apparatuses for processing a radio link failure (RLF) of a target master cell group (MCG) during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462