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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 20 November 2025, in view of the amendments with respect to claims 1 and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 12-15 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,936,534 in view of Teyeb et al. US 2022/0369412.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,936,534 in view of Teyeb et al. US 2022/0369412 in view of Takeda et al. US 2016/0323873.
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 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 12-15 are 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 12 recite the limitation “under an indication” in lines 7, 10, and 8 respectively. This limitation is nested in a configuration that comprises a configuration that indicates to make the configuration effective and indicates to enter the configuration “under an indication”. It is unclear whether “an indication” in lines 7, 10, and 8 respectively is the same indication as any of the previously recited indications. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claims 1, 5, and 12 recite the limitation “a configuration” in lines 21, 23, and 22 respectively. The claims recite many configurations. It is unclear whether “a configuration” in lines 21, 23, and 22 respectively is the same configuration as any of the previously recited configurations. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claims 3-4 and 15, 7-8, and 13-14 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claims 1, 5, and 12 respectively, as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US 9,938,534 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Liu”) in view of Teyeb et al. US 2022/0369412 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Teyeb”).
As to claims 1, 5, and 12, Liu teaches a message sending method, the message sending method comprising:
sending, by a network device, a first radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration signal to a terminal device, wherein the first RRC reconfiguration signal carries a first configuration, wherein the first RRC reconfiguration signal indicates to the terminal device to make the first configuration effective or make the first configuration ineffective (col 9; figure 1: base station sends RRC reconfiguration signal to UE including QoS parameter for UE to apply), wherein the first RRC reconfiguration signal further carries a second configuration and a handover configuration, wherein the handover configuration indicates to the terminal device to hand over a first user instance to a second user instance in a first cell, and wherein the network device covers the first cell (col 9; figure 1: RRC reconfiguration signal indicates UE to hand over from first radio bearer to second radio bearer served by the base station and includes QCI and ARP); and
receiving, by the network device, a first RRC reconfiguration complete signal sent by the terminal device, wherein the first RRC reconfiguration complete signal indicates whether the first configuration has been made effective or the first configuration has been made ineffective (cols 9-10; figure 1: base station receives RRC reconfiguration completion information from the UE indicating the RRC reconfiguration has been completed and QoS parameter has been applied) and wherein receiving the first RRC reconfiguration complete signal comprises receiving, by the network device, the first RRC reconfiguration complete signal on the second user instance, wherein the first RRC reconfiguration complete signal indicates whether the first configuration and the second configuration have been made effective on the second user instance or the first configuration and the second configuration have been made ineffective on the second user instance (cols 9-10; figure 1: the RRC reconfiguration completion information indicates that the QoS/QCI/ARP have been applied to the second bearer).
Although Liu teaches “A message…a first configuration, wherein…make the first configuration effective or make the first configuration ineffective…ineffective on the second user instance,” Liu does not explicitly disclose “a time division multiplexing (TDM) configuration,” “indicates that the terminal device enters the TDM configuration under an indication of the network device,” and “so that a configuration on the second user instance is a new configuration and a new time sequence”.
However, Teyeb teaches the first RRC reconfiguration signal carries a first configuration that comprises a time division multiplexing (TDM) configuration, wherein the first RRC reconfiguration signal indicates to the terminal device to make the first configuration effective and indicates that the terminal device enters the TDM configuration under an indication of the network device or make the first configuration ineffective, so that a configuration on the second user instance is a new configuration and a new time sequence (¶¶142-144: RRC Reconfiguration includes IEs including TDM configuration and indication for UE to apply the TDM configuration to the newly configured radio bearer, so that the newly configured radio bearer has a new configuration and new timing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Liu by including “a time division multiplexing (TDM) configuration,” “indicates that the terminal device enters the TDM configuration under an indication of the network device,” and “so that a configuration on the second user instance is a new configuration and a new time sequence” as taught by Teyeb because it provides Liu’s method with the enhanced capability of ensuring that the UE receives proper configurations according to the 3GPP standard (Teyeb, ¶¶142-144).
As to claims 3, 7, and 13, Liu in view of Teyeb teaches the method according to claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the first RRC reconfiguration signal indicates to the terminal device to make the first configuration effective, and the method further comprises (col 9; figure 1: apply QoS parameter(s)), before the sending the first RRC reconfiguration signal to the terminal device:
sending, by the network device, a second RRC reconfiguration signal to the terminal device, wherein the second RRC reconfiguration signal carries the second configuration, and wherein the second RRC reconfiguration signal indicates to the terminal device to modify the second configuration and make a modified second configuration effective (col 9; figure 1: before sending second bearer information, base station sends RRC reconfiguration signal to modify first bearer to apply the QoS parameter); and
receiving, by the network device, a second RRC reconfiguration complete signal sent by the terminal device (cols 9-10; figure 1: receive RRC reconfiguration complete information indicating reconfiguration has been completed by modifying the first bearer from the UE).
As to claims 4, 8, and 14, Liu in view of Teyeb teaches the method according to claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the first RRC reconfiguration signal indicates to the terminal device to make the first configuration ineffective (col 9; figure 1: RRC reconfiguration information indicates to make previous QoS parameter ineffective), the method further comprises, after the receiving the first RRC reconfiguration complete signaling sent by the terminal device:
sending, by the network device, a second RRC reconfiguration signal to the terminal device, wherein the second RRC reconfiguration signal carries the second configuration, and wherein the second RRC reconfiguration signal indicates to the terminal device to modify the second configuration and make a modified second configuration effective (col 9; figure 1: after sending RRC reconfiguration information to make previous QoS parameter ineffective, send RRC reconfiguration information to apply new QoS parameter optionally through modification); and
receiving, by the network device, a second RRC reconfiguration complete signal sent by the terminal device (cols 9-10; figure 1: receive RRC reconfiguration complete signal from UE).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Teyeb as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeda et al. US 2016/0323873 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Takeda”). Note: Takeda was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 23 January 2024.
As to claim 15, Liu in view of Teyeb teaches the method according to claim 1.
Although Liu in view of Teyeb teaches “The method according to claim 1,” Liu in view of Teyeb does not explicitly disclose “obtaining, by the…TA measurement value”.
However, Takeda teaches obtaining, by the network device, a channel quality indicator (CQI) configuration or a sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration in a TDM configuration ambiguity period; and
determining, by the network device, when a CQI configuration changes, whether a CQI sent by the terminal device is received, or the network device determines, when the SRS configuration changes, whether an SRS sent by the terminal device is received, where the SRS is for determining a corresponding TA measurement value (¶¶126-145 and 153-160; figures 11-12 and 14: during the ambiguity period between timing (TDM) changes, the eNB obtains the old and new CQI configurations, and when the CQI configuration changes, the eNB determines CQI sent by the terminal to be received according to either the old or new configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Liu in view of Teyeb by including “obtaining, by the…TA measurement value” as taught by Takeda because it provides Liu in view of Teyeb’s method with the enhanced capability of clarifying ambiguous measurement reports (Teyeb, ¶¶142-144).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yi et al., US 2022/0210743 A1 – Power Control for Multiple Services
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469