DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8 and 17 are amended.
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are cancelled.
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 1, 8 and 17 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 5-11), filed on 10/30/2025, with respect to claims 1, 8 and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
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, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al. (US 20220141904 A1), hereinafter “Yilmaz”, in view of Xu et al. (US 20230099609 A1), hereinafter “Xu”.
Per claim 1, 8, and 17:
Regarding claim 8, Yilmaz teaches ‘A master node (MN)’ (Yilmaz: [Fig.26a]: “MN”; [Abstract]: “A Master Node (MN)”); ‘comprising: a processor’ (Yilmaz: [Fig.26a]: “Processor”); ‘a memory’ (Yilmaz: [Fig.26a]: “Memory”); ‘storing a program or instructions that is executable by the processor’ (Yilmaz: [0627]: “The memory 550 comprises instructions executable by the processor in MN”), ‘wherein the program or the instructions when executed by the processor, causes the MN to perform the following steps’ (Yilmaz: [0628]: “a computer program 560 comprises instructions, which when executed by the respective at least one processor 540, cause the at least one processor 540 of the MN 110 to perform the actions above”);
‘receiving a request message sent by a secondary node (SN)’ (Yilmaz: [Fig.19]: step 1: “SN”-> “MN”: “S-NODE MODIFICATION RQUIRED (including request to suspend SCG)”; [Abstract]: “a Secondary Node (SN)”);
‘wherein the request message is used for requesting to suspend a secondary cell group of a user terminal’ (Yilmaz: [0184]: “FIG. 19 schematically illustrates a combined block diagram and flowchart illustrating exemplifying signaling in a communications system for SN initiated suspension of the SCG for a UE”);
‘the request message is a SN modification request message carrying first indication information, or the request message is a SN modification required message carrying first indication information; wherein the first indication information is used for indicating suspending of the SN’ (Yilmaz: [FIG.19]: “SN decides to suspend SCG”; [0356]: “The SN 111 then sends a message to the MN 110, e.g. an S-NODE MODIFICATION REQUIRED message indicating that the SCG should be suspended”);
‘sending an acknowledgment message for indicating determining of suspending the secondary cell group to the SN’ (Yilmaz: [FIG.19]: “MN”-> “SN”: step 4: “S-NODE MODIFICATION CONFIRM”; [0357]: “the SN 111 informs the MN 110 that it would suspend SCG, using e.g. S-NODE MODIFICATION REQUIRED. The MN 110 may reject the suspension … If the MN 110 accepts the suspension, e.g., by sending an S-NODE MODIFICATION CONFIRM”).
‘sending a reconfiguration message to the user terminal, wherein the reconfiguration message carries information of suspending the secondary cell group’ (Yilmaz: [FIG.19]: “MN”-> “UE”: step 2: “RRCReconfiguration (including indication to suspend SCG)”);
‘receiving a reconfiguration completion message fed back by the user terminal in response to the reconfiguration message’ (Yilmaz: [FIG.19]: step 3: “UE”-> “MN”: “RRCReconfigurationComplete”).
However, Yilmaz teaches that MN interacting with UE before informing SN upon receiving suspend request from SN.
Nevertheless, Xu in the same field of endeavor teaches upon receiving inactive notification from SN and based on its decision, MN would inform SN to perform suspension before interacting with UE (Xu: [FIG.14A]: step S1401: “SN”-> “MN”: “Activity Notification (Inactive)”; step S1403: “MN decides to send UE to RRC_INACTIVE”, step S1405: “SN Modification Request (suspend lower layer)”, step S1409: “MN”-> “UE”: RRCConnectionRelease(SuspendConfig)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xu’s teaching with that of Yilmaz in order for MN to inform SN to perform suspension before interacting with UE (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the MN of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the memory and the method implemented by the MN of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462