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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 6-10, 16-19 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Vivo Title: Activation and deactivation mechanism for SCG and SCells, R2-2010290 (hereinafter Vivo).
Claims 1 and 16:
Vivo discloses a radio access node for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the radio access node (See fig. 1-3, MN or SN) to: transmit, in response to determining to activate a secondary cell group (SCG), respective state information for each secondary cell (SCells) of multiple SCelss associated with the SCG (See Fig. 3, network triggers SCG activation by sending an indication. Activating SCG means activating all Scells which indicate their state to be activated); and transmit, in response to determining to deactivate the SCG, the respective state information (See fig. 1, network triggers deactivation of SCG for SCell(s). Deactivating SCG means deactivating all Scells which indicate their state to be deactivated); and configuration information regarding behavior of a user equipment (UE) (See proposal 3, “whether UE performs RLM on the PSCell during SCG deactivation is left to NW implementation, i.e., UE only performs RLM when the referred RLM-RS is configured by the NW”. Also, see section 2.1.2 UE behavior on SCells, UE stops monitoring PDCCH).
Claims 2 and 17:
Vivo discloses radio access node comprises a master node (MN) or a secondary node (SN) (See figs. 1-3, MN or SN implemented).
Claims 3 and 18:
Vivo discloses that the state information includes at least one of: an activated state of a SCell within the multiple SCells; a deactivated state of the SCell; or a dormant state of the SCell (See figs. 1-3, activation or deactivation).
Claims 6 and 21:
Vivo discloses receive, from a secondary node (SN), the respective state information; determine, based on the respective state information, whether the SCG has been activated; and determine, in response to the respective state information including an activated state of a SCell within the multiple SCells, that the SCG has been activated (See fig. 3, receiving activity notification and determining activated SCell state).
Claims 7 and 22:
Vivo discloses that the at least one processor is configured to cause the radio access node to, in response to determining to activate the SCG: transmit the respective state information to the UE, and wherein the respective state information includes an activated state of a SCell within the multiple SCells (See fig. 3, sending activation command to the UE to activate SCell in the SCG).
Claims 8 and 23:
Vivo discloses that the at least one processor is configured to cause the radio access node to, in response to determining to deactivate the SCG: receive, from a secondary node (SN), at least one of: the configuration information regarding the behavior of the UE; or the respective state information for the one or more SCells; and transmit, to the UE, the at least one of: the configuration information regarding the behavior of the UE; or the respective state information (See fig. 1-2, receiving inactivity notification and deactivating SCell in SCG and sending deactivation command to the UE).
Claims 9 and 24:
Vivo discloses in response to determining to activate the SCG, the at least one processor is configured to cause the radio access node to: transmit the respetive state information to a master node (MN), and wherein the state information includes an activated state of a SCell within the multiple (See fig. 3, in response to re-activity on the bearer the SN send activity notification to the MN to notify the state of the SCell in the SCG).
Claims 10 and 25:
Vivo discloses transmit to a master node (MN), in response to determining to deactivate the SCG, at least one of: the configuration information regarding the behavior of the UE; or the respective state information (See fig. 1-2, transmitting by SN inactivity notification and deactivating SCell in SCG to notify the inactivity on the bearer).
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) 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo in view of Kadiri US 2019/190682 A1.
Claims 5 and 20:
Vivo discloses that activating and/or deactivating each SCell in the SCG and the configuration information regarding the behavior of the UE (See fig. 1-3, section 2.1.2, all SCells activated/deactivated. Also, see proposal 3, “whether UE performs RLM on the PSCell during SCG deactivation is left to NW implementation, i.e., UE only performs RLM when the referred RLM-RS is configured by the NW”. Also, see section 2.1.2 UE behavior on SCells, UE stops monitoring PDCCH).
Vivo doesn’t explicitly disclose that the state information for the multiple SCells includes at least one of: a mapping relationship between: each SCell of the multiple SCells, and a target state of each SCell of the multiple SCells after activating the SCG; a mapping relationship between: each SCell of the multiple SCells, a target state of each SCell of the multiple SCells after deactivating; a mapping relationship between: each SCell in a first subset of the multiple SCells and a target state of each SCell in the first subset after activating; or a mapping relationship between: each SCell in a second subset of the multiple SCells, a target state of each SCell in the second subset after deactivating.
Kadiri disclose that the state information for the multiple SCells includes at least one of: a mapping relationship between: each SCell of the multiple SCells, and a target state of each SCell of the multiple SCells after activating the SCG; a mapping relationship between: each SCell of the multiple SCells, a target state of each SCell of the multiple SCells after deactivating; a mapping relationship between: each SCell in a first subset of the multiple SCells and a target state of each SCell in the first subset after activating; or a mapping relationship between: each SCell in a second subset of the multiple SCells, a target state of each SCell in the second subset after deactivating (See para 258 and fig. 20, current and target state of SCell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vivo with the teachings of Kadiri to improve the method disclosed by Vivo by including the feature of mapping relation between state. The motivation to combine would have been to clearly convey the transition from one state to the other so that there is no ambiguity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claims 1 and 16, on page 2 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues Vivo doesn’t disclose transmitting respective state information for each SCell of the multiple SCells.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Vivo discloses activation or deactivation. Activating/deactivating SCG means activating/deactivating all Scells which indicate their state to be activated/deactivated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240007840 A1 discloses a method for SCell state configuration includes: receiving an instruction for activating a secondary cell group (SCG) in case that the SCG is in a deactivated state; and configuring the state of an SCell or SCells in the SCG according to indication information contained in the instruction, where the indication information includes an activated state. US 20230362817 A1 A1 discloses if the UE's SCG is deactivated (or, more generally, in a reduced-energy mode such as SCG suspended, SCG dormant, etc.) then the UE may stop monitoring PDCCH for PSCell and SCell of the SCG. This can cause various problems, issues, and/or difficulties for the UE's beam management in the SCG, including beam failure detection and recovery. US 20190090227 A1 discloses that the beam measurement may be triggered when the UE receives the indication to trigger beam report, or when the UE receives the SCell Activation/Deactivation MAC CE.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475