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 .
Priority
The present application does not claim for foreign priority.
This application is a 371 of PCT/SE2021/051289 filed on 12/20/2021.
PCT/SE2021/051289 has a provisional application 63/137,449 filed on 1/14/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 6/19/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of following informalities:
The abstract contains various acronyms. It is suggested to use parenthesis instead of comma, for example “Master Node (MN)”, “user equipment (UE)”, and “secondary cell group (SCG)”, for clarity. See, MPEP §608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, and 39 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 8, 10, 15, 18, 28, 29, 32 33, 38, and 39, suggested to use parenthesis instead of comma, for example “Master Node (MN)”, “user equipment (UE)”, secondary cell group (SCG), Downlink (DL), Uplink (UL), secondary node (SN) for clarity. See, MPEP §608.01(b).
In claim 4, it is suggested to replace “MCG” with “master cell group (MCG)” for definition of the acronym and for clarity.
In claim 5, it is suggested to amend to read “…: an MN part of the UE context, , or part and the SN part of the UE context.” for clarity.
In claim 8, it is suggested to amend to read “…
determining whether the SCG should be activated or deactivated based on the user plane traffic load information;
transmitting a request to a target secondary node (SN) for addition of an SCG to [[the]]a UE target configuration, wherein the request includes the received user plane traffic load information;
receiving a response from [[a]]the target SN including an indication enabling the target MN to determine whether …;
transmitting a response to [[a]]the source MN, the response including a Handover Command comprising a reconfiguration message having a reconfigurationWithSync with [[a]]the UE target configuration.” for clarity.
In claim 10, it is suggested to replace “the user plane traffic related information” in lines 2-3 with “the user plane traffic load information” for correction of a typographical error and for consistency of the terms used in the claim.
In claim 13, it is suggested to amend to read “… wherein the target MN decides to deactivate the SCG in the target SN if [[the]]an amount of user plane traffic load is below a threshold.” for clarity.
In claim 15, it is suggested to amend to read “… wherein the request includes the user plane traffic load information of current SCG, wherein the user plane traffic load information includes downlink …, and wherein the user plane traffic load information comprises different granularity corresponding to per user plane traffic load information for DL, user plane traffic load information for UL, and per bearer.” for clarity.
In claims 18 and 38, it is suggested to replace “an master node” (line 3 in claim 18 and line 7 in claim 38) with “a target master node” for correction of a typographical error and for clarity. Also, it is suggested to replace “a target MN” (in line 6 of claim 18 and in line 10 of claim 38) with “the target MN” for clarity.
In claim 19, it is suggested to replace “the MN” in line 2 with “the target MN” for clarity.
In claim 21, it is suggested to replace “the MN where the addition…” in line 2 with “the target MN whether the addition…” for clarity.
In claims 32, it is suggested to amend the claim for clarity to read:
32. (Currently Amended) A target master node (MN) comprising:
processing circuitry; and
memory coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the target MN to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first request for handover from a source MN for a user equipment(UE) with activated or deactivated secondary cell group(SGC), wherein the first request is received with user plane traffic load information;
determining whether the SCG should be activated or deactivated based on the user plane traffic related information;
transmitting a second request to a target secondary node (SN) for addition of an SCG to [[the]]a UE target configuration, wherein the second request includes the received user plane traffic load information;
receiving a second response from [[a]]the target SN including an indication enabling the target MN to determine whether the requested SCG's mode of operation was accepted or not; and
transmitting a first response to [[a]]the source MN, wherein the first response includes a Handover Command comprising a reconfiguration message having a reconfigurationWithSync with the UE target configuration.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 33, 38, and 39 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites a typographical error “The method of Claim 4, …” in line 1. The claim cannot dependent upon the claim itself without a parent claim. For examination purpose only, it is interpreted as “The method of Claim 1, …”.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 recites a limitation “the information about SCG mode of operation” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 8:
Claim 8 recites a limitation “the user plane traffic related information” in lines 7-8, “the target configuration” in lines 9-10, and “the requested SCG’s mode of operation” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. Claim 8 also recites a limitation “the request” in line 10 and it is unclear whether the “the request” refers to “a request” in line 3 or “a request” in line 9.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites a limitation “the source SN” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites a limitation “the last X time units” in line 5 and “the SCG’s inactivity time” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 recites a limitation “the amount of user plane traffic” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 recites “the request” (in line 1) and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the “the request” refers to “a request” in line 3 of claim 8 or “a request” in line 9 of claim 8. Claim 15 also recites “the last X time units”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 15 also recites a term “user plane traffic information” with is not consistent with the term “user plane traffic load information” used in its parent claim 8. Accordingly, it is unclear if this is the same information with or a different information from the term in claim 8.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 recites a limitation “the requested SCG’s mode of operation” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites a limitation “the mode of operation” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim 18, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 33:
Claim 33 recites a limitation “the source SN” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 33 also recites “the source master node” (in line 2) and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the source master node (MN) receives a request for handover from a source MN, itself (in line 4) and then transmits a response to a source MN, itself (in line 13). It is suggested to remove duplicate limitations of its parent claim 32 and amend the claim to read (similar to its parallel method claim 9) for clarity and consistency to read:
33. (Currently Amended) The target master node of claim 32, wherein the memory includes further instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the target MN to perform operations comprising:
Regarding claim 38:
Claim 38 recites a limitation “the requested SCG’s mode of operation” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 39:
Claim 39 recites a limitation “the source SN” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 7, 28, 29, and 32 are allowed.
Claims 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 33, 38, and 39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Interview
The examiner made multiple phone calls to an applicant’s representative, Timothy Wall (Reg. 50,743) on 12/26/2025, 12/29/2025, 1/5/2026, and 1/6/2026 to discuss examiner’s amendment to address the above objections and 112(b) rejections, but the communication was unsuccessful as there was no response to the call.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al. (US 2021/0243590; Fig. 2E) discloses handover requesting and secondary cell group changing.
Kim et al. (US 2022/0053390; Figs. 7, 13, 14, and 18) discloses inter-gNB handover in higher layer multi-connectivity.
Zhang et al. (US 2023/0397297) discloses SCG deactivation and activation in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario.
CATT (R2-2006988) discloses Inter-Master Node handover with/without Secondary Node change.
ZTE (R2-2006900) discloses SCG deactivation and activation triggered by Master Node and Secondary Node.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471