DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is reminded of the following requirement:
To claim the benefit of a prior-filed application, a continuation or divisional application (other than a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d)), must include a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and § 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Figure 2 contains References 232 and 272, Memory, which are not referenced in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "processor is configured to execute a program code" and "memory to perform operations" in claim 15.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cirik et al. (hereinafter "Cirik '821"), US 20200137821 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Cirik ‘821 discloses a method of a User Equipment (UE), the method comprising (see abstract, a method involving a wireless device is described):
receiving a first signaling configuring one or more sets of cells comprising a first set of cells (see Paragraph 0075, RRC signals are used to configure cells),
wherein the first set of cells comprises a first Special Cell (SpCell) and one or more Secondary Cells (SCells) (see Paragraph 0073 and 0294, serving cells may comprise SpCell and SCells);
receiving a second signaling indicative of a change of Serving Cells of the UE to the first set of cells (see Paragraph 0073, RRC signal may change serving cell to set of SpCell and SCells);
and in response to the second signaling, at least one of adding or activating the first SpCell and the one or more SCells (see Paragraphs 0083 and 0152, RRC signaling may add SCells and SpCell to cell group).
Regarding Claim 2, Cirik ‘821 discloses wherein: the first signaling is indicative of at least one of an identity or an index associated with the first set of cells (see Paragraph 0074, cell index may be determined using RRC signaling).
Regarding Claim 3, Cirik ‘821 discloses comprising: determining to change the Serving Cells of the UE to the first set of cells based on an indication, in the second signaling, of at least one of an identity or an index associated with the first set of cells (see Paragraph 0074 and 0364, actions, including changing the serving cell to the first set of cells, may be applied based on the cell identity/index).
Regarding Claim 4, Cirik ‘821 discloses wherein: the first set of cells includes one or more cells associated with a Master Cell Group (MCG) (see Paragraph 0152, cell set may include cells in a master cell group)
and one or more cells associated with a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) (see Paragraph 0152, cell set may include cells in a secondary cell group).
Regarding Claim 5, Cirik ‘821 discloses wherein: all cells of the first set of cells belong to a same Cell Group (CG) (see Paragraph 0152, cells from same device belong to same cell group).
Regarding Claim 7, Cirik ‘821 discloses wherein: the second signaling is indicative of a Cell Group (CG) corresponding to a Master Cell Group (MCG) or a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) of the UE (see Paragraph 0152, RRC connected state may be indicative of an MCG or SCG);
and the at least one of adding or activating the first SpCell (see Paragraph 0156, secondary cell group includes at least one SpCell)
and the one or more SCells comprises at least one of adding or activating the first SpCell (see Paragraph 0156 and 0294, group of SCells includes at least one SpCell)
and the one or more SCells in the CG indicated by the second signaling (see Paragraph 0152, one or more secondary cells in RRC connected state).
Regarding Claim 8, Cirik ‘821 discloses wherein: the first signaling indicates an association between one or more beams and one or more cells of the first set of cells (see Paragraphs 0295, 0300, and 0302, first set of cells contains SCells, beam management BFR may be performed on SCells, and BFR contains RRC signaling).
Regarding Claim 9, Cirik ‘821 discloses comprising: determining to change the Serving Cells of the UE to the first set of cells (see Paragraph 0262, serving cell may comprise primary cells, secondary cells, and CSI-RS indexes associated with beam failure)
based on an indication, in the second signaling, of at least one of an identity or an index of one or more beams (see Paragraph 0133, beam index is associated with CSI-RS)
associated with one or more cells of the first set of cells (see Paragraph 0364 and 0377, beam failure recovery is associated with serving cell and RRC signaling).
Regarding Claim 10, Cirik ‘821 discloses wherein: the one or more sets of cells comprise a second set of cells (see Paragraph 0156, additional serving cell exists);
and the second signaling is indicative of changing one or more second Serving Cells of the UE to the second set of cells (see Paragraph 0156, RRC signaling indicates an SpCell may be changed with a SCG change procedure).
Regarding Claim 11, Cirik ‘821 discloses comprising: in response to the second signaling, at least one of adding or activating one or more cells of the second set of cells (see Paragraph 0082, RRC signaling may add secondary cells, which may be in second set of cells).
Regarding Claim 12, Cirik ‘821 discloses comprising: in response to the second signaling at least one of releasing or deactivating one or more third Serving Cells, of the UE, that are not included in the first set of cells (see Paragraphs 0153 and 0156, RRC signaling may release split bearer which is not included in first set of cells)
and are not included in the second set of cells (see Paragraph 0156, split bearer is not included in secondary cell group).
Regarding Claim 13, Cirik ‘821 discloses comprising: in response to the second signaling, at least one of releasing or deactivating one or more second Serving Cells, of the UE, that are not included in the first set of cells (see Paragraph 0082, removal of SCells, which may not be in first set of cells, may be performed by RRC messaging/signaling).
Regarding Claim 14, Cirik ‘821 discloses wherein: the second signaling comprises at least one of a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) signaling or a Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) (see Paragraphs 0163-0164, RRC signaling may comprise PDCCH).
Regarding Claim 15, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above (see Figure 33).
Regarding Claim 16, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 2 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding Claim 17, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 3 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding Claim 18, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 7 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding Claim 19, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 9 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding Claim 20, it has similar limitations to those of Claim 14 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
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 Cirik '821 in view of Wu and Zhang (hereinafter "Wu '563"), US 20220263563 A1, Foreign Priority Date February 18, 2021.
Regarding Claim 6, Cirik ‘821 fails to explicitly teach wherein: the first signaling configures the first set of cells via a CellGroupConfig Information Element (IE).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu ‘563 teaches wherein: the first signaling configures the first set of cells via a CellGroupConfig Information Element (IE) (see Paragraph 0628, CellGroupConfig IE sent by the first reference signal is used to configure the first cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Cirik ‘821 by including wherein: the first signaling configures the first set of cells via a CellGroupConfig Information Element (IE). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “avoid the waste of resources,” as suggested by Wu ‘563 in the abstract.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US 20230100878 A1, Domestic Priority: April 30, 2021) discloses transmission methods and devices in wireless communication systems, and in particular to a transmission method and device of radio link failure and recovery.
Ryu et al. (US 20210068129 A1, Domestic Priority: September 04, 2019) discloses a mechanism for activating a secondary serving cell (SCell) in a wireless communication network supporting a multi-cell transmission environment.
Cirik et al. (US 20210160126 A1, Domestic Priority: August 03, 2018) discloses a beam failure recovery procedure in a multicarrier communication system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE M LEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Kwang B. Yao can be reached on 571-272-3182. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights