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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
A statement of intended use, as the name suggests, describes a manner in which a claimed invention may be used, but does not limit the claim and need not be practiced. If the applicant wishes to limit the claims to an intended use, the claims should positively recite those features and make clear that they are limiting. Claims that use this sort of language do not clearly indicate which meaning is intended. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc. 157 F.3d 1340, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Ex parte Kearney, 2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2675 at 1 (BPAI 2012), Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The term “needs” is a verb meaning to be in want, does not mean the function is actually does the function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9,13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “the master network device” lacks antecedent basis since the limitation which it depends on in the parent claim is optional, hence there maybe no master network device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0045568 (Palat, et al) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0132294 (Xing).
Palat, et al discloses radio bearer processing method applied to a secondary network device (figures 7, 10, 11, 12A, 12B, 13) comprising determining whether to release detected a signaling radio bearer 3 (SRB3) from a mobile terminal (¶128, 147, 155, etc). The determine whether to release the SRB3 from the mobile terminal comprises autonomously releasing the SRB3 from the mobile terminal when a first event is detected, the first event comprises the mobile terminal being switched from the secondary network device to another secondary network device (¶53, 118, 124, 128, 163, 169, 179-181, etc, figure 11, #1006, 1004, 1116). Patat, et al does his method for many reasons like handoff, which would inherently a mobile terminal being switched from the secondary network device to another secondary network device.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If not inherent, it would be obvious in view of Xing, which teaches releasing an SRB3 from a mobile terminal when a mobile terminal being switched from a network device to another network device for the purpose of as to avoid a problem of interruption in all service data between UE and a base station caused when a configuration of one or some of DRBs changes in a cell that the UE accesses, note figures 11A, 11B,12A, 12B,#S714, 815, ¶217, 250.
Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of releasing an SRB3 from a mobile terminal when a mobile terminal being switched from a network device to another network device for the purpose of as to avoid a problem of interruption in all service data between UE and a base station caused when a configuration of one or some of DRBs changes in a cell that the UE accesses in the radio bearer processing method applied to a secondary network device of Palat, et al in order to enhance user experience, reduce a time delay, and improve a network throughput.
Regarding claims 3, 8, 13, since the SRB has been released to the master network is optional, transmitting first instruction may not happen.
Regarding claims 4, 9, 13, Palat, et al shows transmitting configuration information of a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message to the mobile terminal, note Abstract, ¶68-75, 117-120. The configuration being “used” to indicate is optional since the master network device is optional and note paragraph 4 above.
Regarding claims 6 and 11 this is an inherent apparatus and product for the claimed method above since this claim is claiming the same functions. Also figure 14, #1402, 1422 in Palat, et al.
Regarding claim 10, note paragraph 4 above and ¶124-128, 131, in Palat, et al.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function.
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights