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 .
Examiner Note
Examiner tried to contact Applicant representative discussing the content of the claims for speedy prosecution but did not receive any response.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node or process execution in the device.
The apparatus and the method claim 1, 10 and 19 recites limitation, “executing a first target operation in a case that a conditional reconfiguration parameter and/or a secondary cell group (SCG) deactivation command is received at a first reception occasion; wherein the first target operation comprises: activating the SCG and initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites executing a first target operation in a case that a conditional reconfiguration parameter and/or a secondary cell group (SCG) deactivation command is received at a first reception occasion. The execution step of receiving at the first reception occasion recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of receiving, etc. For example I set alarm to go off at 7:00 AM so when it was 7:00 AM the alarm went off (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes). For detail see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) III.
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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.
Claim 1-22 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.
Claim 1, 10 and 19 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.
As per claim 1, 10 and 19, applicant is claiming “receiving a conditional reconfiguration parameter” but does not disclose what that conditional reconfiguration parameter is and how it is used to perform the execution of a first target operation.
As per claim 1 and 10 and 19, applicant is claiming “wherein the first target operation comprises: activating the SCG and initiating a condition reconfiguration evaluation procedure” and then in claim 2, 5-9 and 11, 14-18, 20 and 22 claiming for example claim 2, 11 and 20 “wherein the first target operation further comprises at least one of following: postponing initiating the condition reconfiguration evaluation procedure; postponing initiating the condition reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; or ignoring the condition reconfiguration parameter”. Claim 5, 14 and 22 “wherein the first target operation further comprises: postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure, and the postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure comprises at least one of the following….” and then claim 8, 9, 17 and 18 “wherein the first target operation further comprises at least one of: ….”. These are conflicting limitation because it is not clear how after initiating a first condition reconfiguration evaluation procedure it can further postponing initiation and ignoring the condition is performed or both limitation can be performed at the same time. The specification does not support. See specifically Para 34 (for example for claim 2) where it is clearly disclose that the first target operation includes at least one of the following: skipping initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; stopping a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; continuing a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; skipping initiating a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that a first condition is satisfied; stopping a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; postponing initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; postponing initiating a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; ignoring the conditional reconfiguration parameter; deleting the conditional reconfiguration parameter; activating or deactivating the SCG; and ignoring the SCG deactivation command. This makes the claim indefinite and difficult for one having ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention.
Similarly, 5, 14 and 22 and 8, 9, 17 and 18 also has conflicting limitation and are rejected for the same reason as above.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20230232494 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a method for executing a target operation (Para 104, performing a configuration for a PScell of a SCG i.e., method of executing a target operation),
wherein the method is executed by a terminal device (Fig. 3A Unit 130, terminal device), and the method comprises:
executing a first target operation in response to receiving a conditional reconfiguration parameter at a time (Para 87, at which a secondary cell group (SCG) is deactivated (Para 105 and fig. 3A, if the terminal device 130 determines that a condition for performing a configuration for a PScell of a SCG of a second network device 120 is met i.e., conditional reconfiguration parameter, the terminal device 130 determines 310 whether the SCG of the second network device 120 is deactivated i.e., executing a first target operation in response to receiving a conditional reconfiguration parameter at a time at which a secondary cell group (SCG) is deactivated),
wherein the first target operation comprises activating the SCG (Para 106, if the terminal device 130 determines that the SCG is deactivated i.e., time at which a SCG is deactivated, the terminal device 130 transmits 320 a third message to the second network device 120 of the SCG, where the third message indicates that the configuration for the PScell has been completed by the terminal device 130 i.e., first target operation comprising activating the SCG) and initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure (Para 110, the terminal device 130 receives the RRCReconfiguration message of the SCG from the first network device 110 via SRB 1 and the RRCReconfiguration message comprises the reconfigurationWithSync element, the terminal device 130 determines to perform a PScell configuration (such as, addition or change of PScell) i.e., initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang teaches wherein the receiving the conditional reconfiguration parameter at the time at which the SCG is deactivated comprises:
both the conditional reconfiguration parameter and the an SCG deactivation command are received; or an SCG deactivation command is received in a case that the conditional reconfiguration parameter has been obtained and that a conditional reconfiguration related procedure has not been executed; and the first target operation further comprises at least one of the following: initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that a first condition is satisfied; ignoring the conditional reconfiguration parameter (Para 119).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang teaches wherein the first target operation further comprises: postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure, and the postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure comprises: storing a conditional PSCeII change (CPC) configuration; setting a target parameter to a predetermined value; and initiating the conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure and/or the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that a second condition is satisfied, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of the following: an SCG activation command has been received and the target parameter is the predetermined value; the SCG is deactivated and the MCG radio link fails (Para 173-174).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches wherein the first target operation further comprises at least one of: skipping initiating a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that a first condition is satisfied; stopping a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; or postponing initiating a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; the first condition comprises: that at least one candidate cell indicated in conditional reconfiguration is triggered; or that a target event corresponding to at least one candidate cell indicated in conditional reconfiguration is satisfied (Para 110).
Regarding Claim 10, it has been rejected for the same reasons a claim 1 and further teaches a terminal device (Fig. 3 Unit 130 and also see Fig. 10 and Para 207, terminal device 130), comprising a processor (Fig. 10 Unit 1010), a memory (Fig. 10 Unit 1020), and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor (Para 208, The memory 1010 stores at least a part of a program 1030), wherein when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor (Para 209, The program 1030 is assumed to include program instructions that, when executed by the associated processor 1010, enable the device 1000 to operate in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure).
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons a claim 1 and further teaches a non-transitory readable storage medium (Fig. 10 Unit 1020), wherein the readable storage medium stores a program or instructions(Para 208, The memory 1010 stores at least a part of a program 1030), and a processor executes the program or the instructions to perform (Para 209, The embodiments herein may be implemented by computer software executable by the processor 1010 of the device 1000, or by hardware, or by a combination of software and hardware).
Regarding Claim 21, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20230232494 A1 in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #111 electronic - R2-2006900 e-meeting, ZTE Corporation, Sanechips - framework of SCG deactivation and activation17th – 28th August 2020
Regarding Claim 2, Wang does not specifically teach
postponing initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; ignoring the conditional reconfiguration parameter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches from Sec. 2 Framework of SCG/deactivation/activation proposal 3 i.e., UE maintains RRC_CONNECTED state when SCG is deactivated (i.e. no new RRC state is introduced) which can be refer to as postponing initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure (Sec 2 and Proposal 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang with the method of 3GPP so when the SCG is deactivated, both the PSCell and SCG Scell are deactivated so that no new RRC state will be introduced (See Sec 2 Last Para).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang does not specifically teach wherein the first target operation further comprises: postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure, and the postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure comprises at least one of the following: initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that there is data or signaling to be sent on an SCG bearer, a secondary node terminated bearer (SN terminated bearer), or a master cell group (MCG) bearer; initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the SCG has been activated; initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that an SCG activation command has been activated; andor initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the SCG is deactivated and an MCG radio link fails.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches that for SCG deactivation, the state of SCell should also be taken into consideration and suggest 1) Activated state without dormancy behaviour; 2) Activated state with dormancy behaviour (e.g. dormant BWP); 3) Deactivated state (Page 2 Sec 2 Framework of SCG deactivation/activation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang with the method of 3GPP so when the SCG is deactivated, both the PSCell and SCG Scell are deactivated so that no new RRC state will be introduced (See Sec 2 Last Para).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang teaches wherein the initiating the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the SCG is deactivated and an MCG radio link fails comprises: initiating, by the terminal device, random access on a selected candidate cell; and activating the SCG and/or reporting MCG failure information during a random access procedure or using a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message, wherein the selected candidate cell comprises a cell that meets a corresponding trigger event in the conditional reconfiguration (claim 14).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang does not specifically teach wherein the first target operation further comprises at least one of: skipping initiating a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that a first condition is satisfied; stopping a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; postponing the first target operation further comprises at least one of: skipping initiating a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that a first condition is satisfied; stopping a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; postponing initiating the conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure; or postponing initiating a conditional reconfiguration execution procedure in a case that the first condition is satisfied; the conditional reconfiguration execution procedure comprises at least one of the following: determining a first target cell, wherein the first target cell comprises a cell indicated in the conditional reconfiguration; applying an RRC reconfiguration message corresponding to the first target cell; establishing synchronization with the first target cell; initiating random access to the first target cell; a sending an RRC message to the first target cell.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches from Sec. 2 Framework of SCG/deactivation/activation proposal 3 i.e., UE maintains RRC_CONNECTED state when SCG is deactivated (i.e. no new RRC state is introduced ) (Sec 2 and Proposal 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang with the method of 3GPP so when the SCG is deactivated, both the PSCell and SCG Scell are deactivated so that no new RRC state will be introduced (See Sec 2 Last Para).
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 22, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the current amendment filed qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 and the claimed invention meets the requirement under 35 USC 101 and suggest that amended claim 1 recites "executing a first target operation in response to receiving a conditional reconfiguration parameter at a time at which a secondary cell group (SCG) is deactivated; and the first target operation comprises: activating the SCG", which cannot be performed in the human mind, or performed by a generic computer processor.. However, examiner disagrees. In the current claim, the claim recites executing a first target operation in a case that a conditional reconfiguration parameter and/or a secondary cell group (SCG) deactivation command is received at a first reception occasion. The execution step of receiving at the first reception occasion recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of receiving, etc. For example, I set alarm to go off at 7:00 AM so when it was 7:00 AM the alarm went off (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes). For detail see For detail see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) III. For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that the reference fail to teach the limitation of “executing a first target operation in response to …. And initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure” and suggest that paragraph 114-115 disclose that the terminal device 130 applies the configuration of the SCG but the terminal device 130 does not initiate RA to the target PScell, and keeps the SCG deactivated. Wang is to keep SCG
deactivated during the process of applying or completing the PScell configuration, but NOT activating the SCG. Wang is also silent on initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure. In this regard, Wang fails to disclose "executing a first target operation in response to receiving a conditional reconfiguration parameter at a time at which a secondary cell group (SCG) is deactivated; and the first target operation comprises: activating the SCG and initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure" of independent claim 1. However, examiner would like to bring it to the attention of the applicant that during patent examination the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., activating the SCG is a direct operation following the receipt of the conditional reconfiguration parameter) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Having said that Wang teaches the steps of the claimed invention i.e., Wang teaches from Para 105 and fig. 3A, if the terminal device 130 determines that a condition for performing a configuration for a PScell of a SCG of a second network device 120 is met i.e., conditional reconfiguration parameter, the terminal device 130 determines 310 whether the SCG of the second network device 120 is deactivated i.e., executing a first target operation in response to receiving a conditional reconfiguration parameter at a time at which a secondary cell group (SCG) is deactivated and Para 87 teaches that the first network device 110 triggers the terminal device 130 to complete the corresponding configuration. More specifically, the first network device 110 transmits 246 a RRCReconfiguration message to the terminal device 130 and receives 248 a RRCReconfigurationComplete carrying SN RRCReconfiguretionComplete message from the terminal device 130. The first network device 110 transmits 250 a SN ReconfigurationComplete carrying SN RRCReconfiguretionComplete message to the second network device 120-1 i.e., executing a first target operation in response to receiving a conditional reconfiguration parameter at a time. Further, Wang teaches from Para 106, if the terminal device 130 determines that the SCG is deactivated i.e., time at which a SCG is deactivated, the terminal device 130 transmits 320 a third message to the second network device 120 of the SCG, where the third message indicates that the configuration for the PScell has been completed by the terminal device 130 i.e., first target operation comprising activating the SCG and Para 110, the terminal device 130 receives the RRCReconfiguration message of the SCG from the first network device 110 via SRB 1 and the RRCReconfiguration message comprises the reconfigurationWithSync element, the terminal device 130 determines to perform a PScell configuration (such as, addition or change of PScell) i.e., initiating a conditional reconfiguration evaluation procedure). For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained and for those reasons, amended claim 1 is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647