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 .
Specification
The specification amendment submitted on 01/22/2024 which amended the abstract has been accepted.
The specification amendment submitted on 01/22/2024 which amended the title and added the cross-reference to related applications has been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-21 and 29-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 1, recites “A a master node”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “A master node”.
Claim 17, line 4, recites “the UE”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the MN”.
Claim 18, line 4, recites “the UE”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the SN”.
Claim 19, lines 2, 6, 7, recites “can be”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is”.
Claim 21, line 2, recites “can be”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is”.
Claim 29, lines 2, 6, 7, recites “can be”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is”.
Claim 31, line 3, recites “can be”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is”.
Claims 20 and 30 are also objected to since they are depended on the objected claims set forth above.
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 28-35 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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the SN" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 29-35 are also rejected since they are depended on the rejected claim set forth 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2022/0369172 A1, hereinafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 16, Hwang discloses A user equipment (UE) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 5, 7, para. 154; a UE], the UE comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 5, para. 144; a processor]; and
a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 5, para. 143-144; a storage unit coupled with the processor], the processor configured to cause the UE to:
transmit capability information of the UE to a network, wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports a primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see para. 154; the UE transmits multi-RAT dual connectivity (MR-DC) capability to the MN. In addition, the UE transmits, to the MN, capability information or capability indicating that a conditional PSCell change is possible];
receive configuration information from the network [see Fig. 7, para. 157; the MN transmits, to the UE, an RRC message including information (e.g., a conditional PSCell change (CPSC) condition or a conditional PSCell addition condition) on the determined condition, and candidate configuration information (e.g., candidate target PSCell config); RRC message of the MN (operation 7-35)];
perform the PSCell switch procedure, based on the received configuration information, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell [see Fig. 7, para. 157-158; based on pieces of information included in the message received in operation 7-35, the UE performs a measurement and identify whether at least one cell among candidate cells satisfies a PSCell addition or PSCell change condition. When a condition is satisfied while a measurement is performed (operation 7-45), the UE determines to perform conditional PSCell addition, and select, as a target cell, a candidate cell associated with the satisfied condition; the terminal performs a random access to a corresponding target cell (operation 7-60)]; and
transmit information regarding the target PSCell to the network [see Fig. 7, para. 160; the UE performs a random access to a corresponding target cell (operation 7-60), and transmits an RRC message to the MN (operation 7-50)].
Claims 16-19 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses A user equipment (UE) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 4, 9, para. 190-199; a UE], the UE comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190; processor 928]; and
a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; memory 934 coupled with the processor 928], the processor configured to cause the UE to:
transmit capability information of the UE to a network, wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports a primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see para. 110-115; transmit a UE capability report to the NW (e.g., the MN) to indicate that the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change, and the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN; the UE reports different UE capabilities for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC). The source SN 406 decides to use conditional reconfiguration for inter-SN PSCell change (or SN Change) and notifies the MN 404. The inter-SN PSCell change procedure causes the UE 402 to change from a PSCell in the source SN 406 to another PSCell in the target SN 408; also see Fig. 4, para. 141-143];
receive configuration information from the network [see Fig. 4, step 416, para. 144; the UE 402 receives a conditional reconfiguration for PSCell change from the MN 404; also see para. 124];
perform the PSCell switch procedure, based on the received configuration information, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell [see Fig. 4, para. 141-143; the inter-SN PSCell change procedure causes the UE 402 to change from a PSCell in the source SN 406 to another PSCell in the target SN 408]; and
transmit information regarding the target PSCell to the network [see Fig. 4, step 424, para. 128, 144; the UE transmits a response message to the MN after determining the conditional reconfiguration is applied and the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN (see para. 110-115)].
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses A master node (MN) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 4, 9, para. 190-199; a MN], the MN comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190; processor 928]; and
a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; memory 934 coupled with the processor 928], the processor configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), capability information of the UE, wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports a primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see para. 110-115; receive, from a UE, a capability report of the UE indicating the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change; the UE reports different UE capabilities for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC). The source SN 406 decides to use conditional reconfiguration for inter-SN PSCell change (or SN Change) and notifies the MN 404. The inter-SN PSCell change procedure causes the UE 402 to change from a PSCell in the source SN 406 to another PSCell in the target SN 408; also see Fig. 4, para. 141-143]; and
transmit an indicator associated with the capability information to a secondary node (SN), wherein the SN is communicatively coupled to the MN [see para. 110-115; the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN, wherein the SN is communicatively coupled to the MN (see Fig. 4, para. 141-144)].
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses A secondary node (SN) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 4, 9, para. 190-199; a SN], the SN comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190; processor 928]; and
a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; memory 934 coupled with the processor 928], the processor configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a master node (MN), an indicator associated with capability information of a user equipment (UE), wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports a primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see Fig. 1-2, para. 110-115; a UE transmits a UE capability report to the NW (e.g., the MN) to indicate that the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change, and the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN; the UE reports different UE capabilities for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC). The source SN decides to use conditional reconfiguration for inter-SN PSCell change (or SN Change) and notifies the MN. The inter-SN PSCell change procedure causes the UE to change from a PSCell in the source SN to another PSCell in the target SN], and wherein the MN is communicatively coupled to the SN [see Fig. 2-5; the MN is communicatively coupled to the SN]; and
transmit, to the MN, configuration information for use during the PSCell switch procedure [see Fig. 2, para. 122-123; transmit, to the MN, data forwarding addresses and indication to indicate whether to apply the full RRC configuration or to apply the delta RRC configuration for use during the inter-SN CPC procedure (also referred to as conditional reconfiguration for SN change)].
Regarding claim 28, Chen discloses A processor for wireless communication in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 4, 9, para. 190-199; processor 928], the processor comprising:
at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; a controller coupled with memory 934 and configured to cause the processor to]:
receive, from a master node (MN), an indicator associated with capability information of a user equipment (UE), wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports a primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see Fig. 1-2, para. 110-115; a UE transmits a UE capability report to the NW (e.g., the MN) to indicate that the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change, and the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN; the UE reports different UE capabilities for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC). The source SN decides to use conditional reconfiguration for inter-SN PSCell change (or SN Change) and notifies the MN. The inter-SN PSCell change procedure causes the UE to change from a PSCell in the source SN to another PSCell in the target SN], and wherein the MN is communicatively coupled to the SN [see Fig. 2-5; the MN is communicatively coupled to the SN]; and
transmit, to the MN, configuration information for use during the PSCell switch procedure [see Fig. 2, para. 122-123; transmit, to the MN, data forwarding addresses and indication to indicate whether to apply the full RRC configuration or to apply the delta RRC configuration for use during the inter-SN CPC procedure (also referred to as conditional reconfiguration for SN change)].
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Chen discloses wherein the indicator is at least one of: an explicit information element (IE) indicating that the PSCell switch procedure can be supported; a capability identifier (ID) of the UE implying that the PSCell switch procedure is supported by the UE; a maximum number of candidate PSCells can be prepared by the SN; a maximum number of candidate secondary cell groups (SCGs) can be prepared by the SN; and one or more cells, wherein each cell within the one or more cells is prepared as a PSCell of a candidate SCG [see para. 113; the UE capability report to the NW is transmitted in an NR capability container].
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 20-21 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of (ZTE CORPORATION ET AL: "Further consideration on conditional PSCell addition/change", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 electronic; R2-2101567, February 5, 2021; 5 pages, hereinafter “R2-2101567”).
Regarding claims 20 and 30, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: in response to receiving the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs, and in response to not receiving a conditional primary cell of a second cell group (PSCell) addition and change (CPAC) indicator, considering that the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs is for the PSCell switch procedure.
However, R2-2101567 teaches in response to receiving the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs, and in response to not receiving a conditional primary cell of a second cell group (PSCell) addition and change (CPAC) indicator, considering that the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs is for the PSCell switch procedure [see page 3; the MN directly allocates the maximum number of candidate PSCell that the SN is allowed to configure].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “in response to receiving the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs, and in response to not receiving a conditional primary cell of a second cell group (PSCell) addition and change (CPAC) indicator, considering that the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs is for the PSCell switch procedure”, as taught by R2-2101567, into the system of Chen so that the SN is allowed to configure via CPC without MN involvement [see R2-2101567, page 3].
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: receive, from the MN, a maximum number of secondary cell groups (SCGs) that can be configured as a serving SCG.
However, R2-2101567 teaches the SN to receive, from the MN, a maximum number of secondary cell groups (SCGs) that can be configured as a serving SCG [see page 3; the MN directly allocates the maximum number of candidate PSCell that the SN is allowed to configure].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the SN to receive, from the MN, a maximum number of secondary cell groups (SCGs) that can be configured as a serving SCG”, as taught by R2-2101567, into the system of Chen so that the SN is allowed to configure via CPC without MN involvement [see R2-2101567, page 3].
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of (ZTE "Discussion on CPA and CPC" 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #111-e, R3-210183;4 February 2021; 9 pages, hereinafter “R3-210183”).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration information includes one of: configuration information regarding one or more candidate secondary cell groups (SCGs), wherein each candidate SCG within the one or more candidate SCGs is associated with one PSCell; and configuration information regarding one SCG, wherein the one SCG is associated with two or more candidate PSCells.
However, R3-210183 teaches the configuration information includes one of: configuration information regarding one or more candidate secondary cell groups (SCGs), wherein each candidate SCG within the one or more candidate SCGs is associated with one PSCell; and configuration information regarding one SCG, wherein the one SCG is associated with two or more candidate PSCells [see page 6; each candidate SN decides for the one or more candidate PSCells and other related candidate SCG SCells and provides the new SCG radio resource configuration to the MN within an SN RRC configuration message contained in the SN Addition Request Acknowledge message].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the configuration information includes one of: configuration information regarding one or more candidate secondary cell groups (SCGs), wherein each candidate SCG within the one or more candidate SCGs is associated with one PSCell; and configuration information regarding one SCG, wherein the one SCG is associated with two or more candidate PSCells”, as taught by R3-210183, into the system of Chen so that it would provide conditional PScell addition [see R3-210183, page 6].
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wang (US 2022/0264393 A1).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration information includes at least one of: an explicit indicator associated with a secondary cell group (SCG) indicating whether the SCG is a serving SCG; an explicit indicator associated with the SCG indicating whether the SCG is a non-serving SCG; an activation indication associated with the SCG; a deactivation indication associated with the SCG; an explicit indicator associated with a PSCell indicating whether it is a serving PSCell; an explicit indicator associated with the PSCell indicating whether it is a non-serving PSCell; one or more execution conditions of the PSCell switch procedure; one or more PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more SCGs prepared by the SN; one or more serving PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more serving SCGs prepared by the SN; an activated or deactivated state of the serving PSCells prepared by the SN; and an activated or deactivated state of the serving SCGs prepared by the SN.
However, Wang teaches wherein the configuration information includes at least one of: an explicit indicator associated with a secondary cell group (SCG) indicating whether the SCG is a serving SCG; an explicit indicator associated with the SCG indicating whether the SCG is a non-serving SCG; an activation indication associated with the SCG; a deactivation indication associated with the SCG; an explicit indicator associated with a PSCell indicating whether it is a serving PSCell; an explicit indicator associated with the PSCell indicating whether it is a non-serving PSCell; one or more execution conditions of the PSCell switch procedure; one or more PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more SCGs prepared by the SN; one or more serving PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more serving SCGs prepared by the SN; an activated or deactivated state of the serving PSCells prepared by the SN; and an activated or deactivated state of the serving SCGs prepared by the SN [see para. 105; when multiple SCGs are configured on the network side, the network side can indicate the activation state of each SCG, that is, multiple SCGs can be active simultaneously. Further, the network side can simultaneously perform PSCell changes of multiple SCGs through one network command].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the configuration information includes at least one of: an explicit indicator associated with a secondary cell group (SCG) indicating whether the SCG is a serving SCG; an explicit indicator associated with the SCG indicating whether the SCG is a non-serving SCG; an activation indication associated with the SCG; a deactivation indication associated with the SCG; an explicit indicator associated with a PSCell indicating whether it is a serving PSCell; an explicit indicator associated with the PSCell indicating whether it is a non-serving PSCell; one or more execution conditions of the PSCell switch procedure; one or more PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more SCGs prepared by the SN; one or more serving PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more serving SCGs prepared by the SN; an activated or deactivated state of the serving PSCells prepared by the SN; and an activated or deactivated state of the serving SCGs prepared by the SN”, as taught by Wang, into the system of Chen so that the latency of changing the PSCell can be reduced, that is, the latency of data interruption of the terminal device can be reduced [see Wang, para. 20].
Claims 24, 26-27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Futaki et al. (US 2022/0086704 A1, hereinafter “Futaki”).
Regarding claims 24 and 34, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: receive, by a centralized unit (CU) of the SN and from a first distributed unit (DU) of the SN, an occurrence indicator of the PSCell switch procedure after the first DU sends a PSCell switch command to the UE.
However, Futaki teaches the SN to receive, by a centralized unit (CU) of the SN and from a first distributed unit (DU) of the SN, an occurrence indicator of the PSCell switch procedure after the first DU sends a PSCell switch command to the UE [see Fig. 6, para. 64; the CU 21 generates an RRC message (e.g., NR RRCReconfiguration message) containing the received radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) and include it in the SN MODIFICATION REQUIRED message (step 603). In step 601, the CU 21 transmits one or both of the condition for the UE 3 to exit the conditional PSCell change and the value of the validity timer to the DU 22B, together with the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change. Then the DU 22B includes them in the radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig), which contains the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change, and transmit it to the CU 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the SN to receive, by a centralized unit (CU) of the SN and from a first distributed unit (DU) of the SN, an occurrence indicator of the PSCell switch procedure after the first DU sends a PSCell switch command to the UE”, as taught by Futaki, into the system of Chen so that it would allowing an SN to be aware of a satisfaction of an execution condition of a conditional PSCell change (or an initiation of the conditional PSCell change) [see Futaki, para. 11].
Regarding claim 26, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: receive a random access (RA) request or a data packet by a second distributed unit (DU) of the SN from the UE; and in response to receiving the RA request or the data packet, transmit, by the second DU of the SN to a centralized unit (CU) of the SN, successful information of the PSCell switch procedure, wherein the second DU of the SN is associated with the target PSCell.
However, Futaki teaches the SN to receive a random access (RA) request or a data packet by a second distributed unit (DU) of the SN from the UE; and in response to receiving the RA request or the data packet, transmit, by the second DU of the SN to a centralized unit (CU) of the SN, successful information of the PSCell switch procedure, wherein the second DU of the SN is associated with the target PSCell [see Fig. 6, step 610, para. 71; the UE initiates access (random access procedure) to the target PSCell (the cell served by the target DU 22B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the SN to receive a random access (RA) request or a data packet by a second distributed unit (DU) of the SN from the UE; and in response to receiving the RA request or the data packet, transmit, by the second DU of the SN to a centralized unit (CU) of the SN, successful information of the PSCell switch procedure, wherein the second DU of the SN is associated with the target PSCell”, as taught by Futaki, into the system of Chen so that it would allowing an SN to be aware of a satisfaction of an execution condition of a conditional PSCell change (or an initiation of the conditional PSCell change) [see Futaki, para. 11].
Regarding claim 27, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: in response to receiving the successful information from the second DU of the SN, transmit, by the CU of the SN to the MN, a message including the successful information.
However, Futaki teaches the SN to: in response to receiving the successful information from the second DU of the SN, transmit, by the CU of the SN to the MN, a message including the successful information [see Fig. 6, para. 62-63, 71; the UE initiates access (random access procedure) to the target PSCell (the cell served by the target DU 22B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the SN to: in response to receiving the successful information from the second DU of the SN, transmit, by the CU of the SN to the MN, a message including the successful information”, as taught by Futaki, into the system of Chen so that it would allowing an SN to be aware of a satisfaction of an execution condition of a conditional PSCell change (or an initiation of the conditional PSCell change) [see Futaki, para. 11].
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of (Moderator (China Telecom) "Email discussion summary for [RAN-R18-WS-eMBB-China Telecom]" 3GPP TSG RAN Rel-18 workshop, RWS-210517; July 2, 2021; 71 pages, hereinafter “China Telecom”).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein: in response to the source PSCell being in an activated state, the target PSCell is in the activated state; or in response to the source PSCell being in a deactivated state, the target PSCell is in the deactivated state; or the target PSCell is by default in the activated state.
However, China Telecom teaches in response to the source PSCell being in an activated state, the target PSCell is in the activated state; or in response to the source PSCell being in a deactivated state, the target PSCell is in the deactivated state; or the target PSCell is by default in the activated state [see page 5, lines 7-9; activate/deactivate an SCG among the configured SCGs dynamically based on certain criterions such as the service requirements or radio link quality, and so on].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “in response to the source PSCell being in an activated state, the target PSCell is in the activated state; or in response to the source PSCell being in a deactivated state, the target PSCell is in the deactivated state; or the target PSCell is by default in the activated state”, as taught by China Telecom, into the system of Chen so that it would have more than one SCG configured [see China Telecom, page 5].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469