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 .
Claim Interpretation
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 subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP § 2111.01 for more information on the plain meaning of claim language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses,
(D) contingent limitations,
(E) printed matter, or
(F) terms with associated functional language.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). As a general proposition, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to non-functional descriptive material absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.05 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). In Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888 (BPAI 2008) (precedential), the Board held that the nature of the information being manipulated by the computer should not be given patentable weight absent evidence that the information is functionally related to the process “by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic” of the steps. See also Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (non-precedential) (holding “wellness-related” data stored in a database and communicated over a network was non-functional descriptive material as claimed because the data “does not functionally change” the system).
In the context of patent claims, "at least one of A and B" generally means "at least one of A and at least one of B," requiring the presence of at least one of each element, not just one or the other. Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017 and SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use or not the use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
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 1-18 and 23-30 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.
The term “more relaxed” in the independent claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more relaxed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What’s the difference between relaxed, less relaxed, or more relaxed than what? Someone more relaxed can be less relaxed or just relaxed. The specification does not provide a standard or definition for “relaxed” and also what is “more relaxed” means.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 23-30, as understood, are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(b) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0314959 (Islam, et al).
The claims are very confusing and is not fully understood. The Examiner will try to apply art to these perplexing claims.
Islam, et al discloses a method performed by a wireless device configured to operate in multi-radio dual connectivity, MR-DC, to perform measurements in a deactivated secondary cell group, SCG, (“neighbor cell”) mode of operation (¶6-10, figures 5, 6). The method comprising obtaining measurement configuration for use in a deactivated SCG mode of operation (figures 10, 11, #1000, 1100). The measurement configuration is more relaxed than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG (the current cell) mode of operation and when in deactivated SCG mode of operation, performing measurements and measurement reporting in the deactivated SCG according to the obtained measurement configuration (¶86-96, 112-115).
Regarding claims 2-7, note paragraphs 6-8 and 11 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further steps and functions claims limiting the method.
Regarding claim 8, note figures 8 and 9 and processing circuitry (#804, 820, 822) and storage medium (#806) and the above paragraphs since the apparatus is claiming the same functions as the method claims and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 9-14, note paragraphs 6-8 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further structure and functions claims limiting the apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, Islam, et al shows a method performed by a network node (#108 in figure 1) configured to communicate with a wireless device (#106) operating in multi-radio dual connectivity, MR-DC, and operable to perform measurements in a deactivated secondary cell group, SCG (“neighbor cell”), mode of operation The method comprising obtaining a measurement configuration for the wireless device for use in a deactivated SCG mode of operation (figures 10, 11, #1000, 1100). The measurement configuration is more relaxed than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG mode (current cell) of operation and transmitting the measurement configuration to the wireless device (figures 5, 6, ¶6-10, 86-96).
Regarding claims 16-18, note paragraphs 6-8 and 11 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further steps and functions claims limiting the method.
Regarding claim 23, note figures 8 and 9 and the above paragraphs since the apparatus is claiming the same functions as the method claims and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 24-30, note paragraphs 6-8 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further structure and functions claims limiting the apparatus.
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).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 15-18, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HUAWEI (RAPPORTEUR): "[AT112-e][230][eDCCA] Progressing FFS points of efficient SCG activation and deactivation (Huawei)", 3GPP DRAFT.
The claims are very confusing and is not fully understood. The Examiner will try to apply art to these perplexing claims.
HUAWEI discloses a method performed by a wireless device configured to operate in multi-radio dual connectivity, MR-DC, to perform measurements in a deactivated secondary cell group, SCG, mode of operation. The method comprising obtaining measurement configuration for use in a deactivated SCG mode of operation. The measurement configuration is more relaxed than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG mode of operation and when in deactivated SCG mode of operation, performing measurements and measurement reporting in the deactivated SCG according to the obtained measurement configuration, note ¶ 2.5
Regarding claims 2-7, note paragraphs 6-8 and 11 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further steps and functions claims limiting the method.
Regarding claim 15, HUAWEI shows a method performed by a network node configured to communicate with a wireless device operating in multi-radio dual connectivity, MR-DC, and operable to perform measurements in a deactivated secondary cell group, SCG, mode of operation The method comprising obtaining a measurement configuration for the wireless device for use in a deactivated SCG mode of operation. The measurement configuration is more relaxed than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG mode of operation and transmitting the measurement configuration to the wireless device (¶2.5).
Regarding claims 16-18, note paragraphs 6-8 and 11 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further steps and functions claims limiting the method.
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).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 15-18, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CATT: "Dormant SCG state", 3GPP DRAFT, 3GPP DRAFT.
The claims are very confusing and is not fully understood. The Examiner will try to apply art to these perplexing claims.
CATT discloses a method performed by a wireless device configured to operate in multi-radio dual connectivity, MR-DC, to perform measurements in a deactivated secondary cell group, SCG, mode of operation. The method comprising obtaining measurement configuration for use in a deactivated SCG mode of operation. The measurement configuration is more relaxed than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG mode of operation and when in deactivated SCG mode of operation, performing measurements and measurement reporting in the deactivated SCG according to the obtained measurement configuration, note pages 2-3.
Regarding claims 2-7, note paragraphs 6-8 and 11 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further steps and functions claims limiting the method.
Regarding claim 15, CATT shows a method performed by a network node configured to communicate with a wireless device operating in multi-radio dual connectivity, MR-DC, and operable to perform measurements in a deactivated secondary cell group, SCG, mode of operation The method comprising obtaining a measurement configuration for the wireless device for use in a deactivated SCG mode of operation. The measurement configuration is more relaxed than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG mode of operation and transmitting the measurement configuration to the wireless device, note pages 2-3.
Regarding claims 16-18, note paragraphs 6-8 and 11 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further steps and functions claims limiting the method.
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).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 15-18, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HUAWEI (RAPPORTEUR): "[Post1 11][919][eDCCA] Efficient activation deactivation of SCG Discussion on SCG deactivation and activation", 3GPP DRAFT.
The claims are very confusing and is not fully understood. The Examiner will try to apply art to these perplexing claims.
HUAWEI discloses a method performed by a wireless device configured to operate in multi-radio dual connectivity, MR-DC, to perform measurements in a deactivated secondary cell group, SCG, mode of operation. The method comprising obtaining measurement configuration for use in a deactivated SCG mode of operation. The measurement configuration is more relaxed than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG mode of operation and when in deactivated SCG mode of operation, performing measurements and measurement reporting in the deactivated SCG according to the obtained measurement configuration, note ¶ 2.2.2
Regarding claims 2-7, note paragraphs 6-8 and 11 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further steps and functions claims limiting the method.
Regarding claim 15, HUAWEI shows a method performed by a network node configured to communicate with a wireless device operating in multi-radio dual connectivity, MR-DC, and operable to perform measurements in a deactivated secondary cell group, SCG, mode of operation The method comprising obtaining a measurement configuration for the wireless device for use in a deactivated SCG mode of operation. The measurement configuration is more relaxed than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG mode of operation and transmitting the measurement configuration to the wireless device (¶2.2.2).
Regarding claims 16-18, note paragraphs 6-8 and 11 above. These claims only limit measurement configurations, subsets, etc. with no further steps and functions claims limiting the method.
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 filed November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for the 35 USC §112(b), the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicants fail to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b). The satisfactory response by the applicants can take the form of a modification of the language identified as unclear, a separate definition of the unclear language, or, in an appropriate case, a persuasive explanation for the record of why the language at issue is not actually unclear. On the facts before the Examiner, this holding suffices to uphold the rejection that occurred here. The USPTO must be able to make the congressionally created examination process work so that it fulfills its purpose of producing patents whose claims meet the statutory standards. Indefiniteness rejections by the USPTO arise in a different posture from that of indefiniteness challenges to an issued patent. See Exxon Research v. US, 265 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It makes good sense, for definiteness and clarity as for other validity requirements, for the USPTO initially to reject claims based on a well-founded prima facie case of lack of clarity (in its several forms) based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the entire written description and developing prosecution history. Then, if the applicants do not adequately respond to that prima facie case, to confirm that rejection on the substantive basis of having failed to meet the requirements of § 112(b). Absent a “satisfactory response” from the applicant, “the USPTO can properly reject [a] claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b)” when “the language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention….” 35 USC 112(b) requires “that claims be written in clear and unambiguous terms,” which “necessarily invokes some standard of reasonable precision in the use of language in the context of the circumstances.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313 (emphasis added).
The specifications do not state the definition of a measurement report of being “relaxed.” The plain definition of “relaxed” is “free from tension and anxiety.” Can data, a measurement configuration, can somehow be have tension and anxiety? Can a measurement have emotions and feelings?
Another plain meaning of “relaxed” is “freed from or lacking in precision or stringency.” From the language of the claim, both measurement configurations are “relaxed” but somehow the deactivated SCG measurement configuration is “more relaxed.” So ,if both measurement configuration are “freed from or lacking in precision or stringency” how can another measurement configuration can be “more” “freed from or lacking in precision or stringency” ? The specification absolutely fails to define how the measurement configuration is somehow mote freed from or lacking in precision or stringency than a measurement configuration for use in an activated SCG mode of operation.
During prosecution, Applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. The Court noted that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation. A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and the generally understood meaning of particular terms may vary from art to art. Therefore, it is important to analyze claim terms in view of the application’s specification from the perspective of those skilled in the relevant art since a particular term used in one patent or application may not have the same meaning when used in a different application. The USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b). The satisfactory response by the applicant can take the form of a modification of the language identified as unclear, a separate definition of the unclear language, or, in an appropriate case, a persuasive explanation for the record of why the language at issue is not actually unclear. Indefiniteness rejections by the USPTO arise in a different posture from that of indefiniteness challenges to an issued patent. See Exxon Research v. US, 265 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It makes good sense, for definiteness and clarity as for other validity requirements, for the USPTO initially to reject claims based on a well-founded prima facie case of lack of clarity (in its several forms) based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the entire written description and developing prosecution history. Then, if the applicant does not adequately respond to that prima facie case, to confirm that rejection on the substantive basis of having failed to meet the requirements of § 112(b). The USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b). The satisfactory response by the applicant can take the form of a modification of the language identified as unclear, a separate definition of the unclear language, or, in an appropriate case, a persuasive explanation for the record of why the language at issue is not actually unclear. The USPTO must be able to make the congressionally created examination process work so that it fulfills its purpose of producing patents whose claims meet the statutory standards. The USPTO thus meets its obligation to explain adequately the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond. “Once the applicant is so notified, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the prima facie case with evidence and/or argument.” Indefiniteness rejections by the USPTO arise in a different posture from that of indefiniteness challenges to an issued patent. In re Packard (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Regarding the 35 USC §102 rejections, anticipatory reference need not duplicate, word for word, what is in claims; anticipation can occur when claimed limitation is "inherent" or otherwise implicit in relevant reference (Standard Havens Products Incorporated v. Gencor Industries Incorporated, 21 USPQ2d 1321). “...a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all of the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, “a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.” This was an anticipation, without resort to obviousness, because the reference sufficiently disclosed making the combination, though not expressed a single embodiment or example, Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016). During examination before the Patent and Trademark Office, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and limitations from the specification may not be imputed to the claims (Ex parte Akamatsu, 22 USPQ2d, 1918; In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, In re Priest, 199 USPQ 11). During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, "[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not a part of the claim." See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In response to Applicant's argument, the law of anticipation requires that a distinction be made between the invention described or taught and the invention claimed. It does not require that the reference "teach" what the subject patent teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly "prior art," it is only necessary that the claims under consideration "read on" something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or "fully met" by it. It was held in In re Donohue, 226 USPQ 619, that, "It is well settled that prior art under 35 USC §102(b) must sufficiently describe the claimed invention to have placed the public in possession of it...Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combine the description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention." Clear inference to the artisan must be considered, In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342. A prior art reference must be considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, In re Samour, 197 USPQ 1. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” Claim term is not limited to single embodiment disclosed in specification, since number of embodiments disclosed does not determine meaning of the claim term, and applicant cannot overcome "heavy presumption" that term takes on its ordinary meaning simply by pointing to preferred embodiment (Teleflex Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., CA FC, 6/21/02, 63 USPQ2d 1374). Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA1969). “Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is nonanalogous art’ or teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not germane’ to a rejection under section 102.” Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir.1998).
Taking broadest reasonable interpretation, Islam, et al clearly discloses the invention. Does Islam, et al can connect to more than one other radio at any time, the “multi-radio dual connectivity?” Yes, it does, all the radios can connect to more than one radio. Since the claims absolutely does not state what is activated and deactivated SCG, the Examiner can take anything which show something which is active and deactivate. In Islam, et al discloses the current cell is activity communicating and the neighbor cells are not activity communicating, hence one SCG is activated and other SCH is deactivated per connection. Hence, the evidence is overwhelming that Islam, et al discloses the claimed invention.
Applicant admits that in Huawei that “one option is that the UE may determine not to perform certain measurements.” One plain meaning of “more relaxed” which is somehow “more” “freed from or lacking in precision or stringency”. Stating that Huawei is not to perform any measurement is “freed from or lacking in precision or stringency” Applicant’s attorney argument does not disprove the Examiner’s, rejection, but clearly supports the Examiner rejection.
Applicant’s attorney states and admits that “the UE requirement of CSI measurement/RRM measurement/beam management of Scells of SCG can be made flexible. The network can indicate to the UE to perform measurements on selected Scells of SCG, i.e. not necessary to measure all configured (dormant ) Scells of SCG." Hence, Applicant’s attorney remarks clearly agree with the Examiner’s rejection under CATT, since the plain meaning of “more relaxed” which is somehow “more” “freed from or lacking in precision or stringency”. Hence, deactivated SCG is “more” “freed from or lacking in precision or stringency”, because it’s “not necessary to measure all configured (dormant ) Scells of SCG", CATT discloses the claimed invention.
Applicant’s attorney states and admits that “the cited portion of Huawei 2 discloses that the UE may determine not to perform certain configured measurements.” The UE determines not to perform certain configured measurements is “more” “freed from or lacking in precision or stringency”. Hence, Huawei disclose the claimed invention.
If Applicant claims their invention in such vague and broad terms, it should not come surprise to Applicant that the Examiner also views the claimed language just as broad.
Applicant has not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group, except as will be noted in this action. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those claims, they now stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
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.
If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
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