DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
Claim Status
Claims 4 and 5 are amended.
No claims are cancelled nor added.
Claims 4 and 5 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to claims 4 and 5 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amendments to the claims necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection discussed below.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSAI (US 2022/0264686 A1) hereinafter “Tsai” in view of WU et al. (US 2021/0058285 A1) hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tsai discloses Claim 4 of a terminal (see FIG. 2; see ¶ [0057], user equipment) comprising: and Claim 5 of a communication method performed by a terminal apparatus, the communication method comprising:
processing circuitry (see FIG. 2; see ¶ [0057] [0062], a controller/processor) configured to communicate with a base station device using a master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG) (see ¶ [0039], the UE may be communicatively connected to a Master Cell Group (MCG) and a Secondary Cell Group (SCG)); and
reception circuitry (see FIG. 2; see ¶ [0057], a wireless transceiver) configured to receive a radio resource control (RRC) message (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0073-74], the UE receives an RRC message),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine to perform SCG deactivation from a state in which the SCG is activated in a case that the RRC message includes an indication of the SCG deactivation (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0073-74] [0077-80], the UE determines whether the indicator is for suspension/deactivation of the SCG, the UE may further deactivate the PSCell and all SCells of the SCG in response to the RRC message including an indicator for suspension/deactivation of the SCG),
determine not to perform the SCG deactivation in a case that the RRC message does not include the indication of the SCG deactivation (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0081], if the indicator is for resumption of the SCG or activation of the PSCell, then the UE will not perform the SCG deactivation), and
in a case that the SCG deactivation is determined to be performed, stop an ongoing random access procedure in the SCG (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0079-80], the UE suspends SCG transmission for all radio bearers and stop PDCCH monitoring i.e., stop on going random access procedure).
Althought Tsai discloses the SCG deactivation is determined to be performed, but does not explicitly disclose performed by a medium access control (MAC) entity of the terminal apparatus.
However, Wu discloses the SCG deactivation is determined to be performed by a medium access control (MAC) entity of the terminal apparatus (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0003] [0057], deactivating the SCell/SCG, where the MAC layer/entity of the terminal specifically deactivates the SCell/SCG).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide performed by a medium access control (MAC) entity of the terminal apparatus as taught by Wu, in the system of Tsai, so that it would provide to deactivate the SCell by the MAC layer (Wu: see ¶ [0057]).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
