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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 8, with respect to the objection to the title been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 8, with respect to the objection to the claims been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 8, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection to claim 1-3 and 5-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Da Silva (US 20230379789 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 9, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection to claim 4 and 11-15 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Selvaganapathy does not disclose “the communication terminal selects the new secondary node as a connection destination on a basis of a selection result of the new master node as a connection destination and a predetermined condition.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Selvaganapathy teaches that configurations for performing CPC before or after CHO in paragraphs 224 and 230-231. Selvaganapathy also teaches that CPC is for a master node (MN) and CHO is for a secondary node (SN) in paragraph 145. Selvaganapathy also discloses in paragraph 123, an execution condition which corresponds to the predetermined condition in the instant claim. In combination, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably interpret these teachings of Selvaganapathy as corresponding to the cited feature in the instant claim. Thus, Selvaganapathy does teach all the features of the instant claim. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 11-15 are based on their dependence to claim 4 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 8, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection to claim 10 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Deenoo (US 20220394583 A1).
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 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) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Selvaganapathy (US 20230379771 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Selvaganapathy discloses:
“A communication system comprising: a master base station that is a base station that operates as a master node of dual connectivity in which a communication terminal simultaneously connects to two base stations; a secondary base station that is a base station that operates as a secondary node of the dual connectivity; and a communication terminal capable of simultaneously connecting to the master base station and the secondary base station, wherein” ([para 0095]: “One example is E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (EN-DC), in which an eNB acts as a MN 102/112 and a gNB acts as a SN 104/114.” ; [para 0002]: “Multi-Radio Dual Connectivity (MR-DC) is an example of multi-connectivity. MR-DC enables a user equipment (UE) with multiple receivers/transmitters to utilise resources provided by different nodes. During multi-connectivity, the UE stores a configuration.”)
“in a case where both a process in which the communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination and a process in which the communication terminal changes a secondary node as a connection destination are required in a state where the communication terminal is connected to the master base station and the secondary base station, in a case where the communication terminal selects a new master node as a connection destination prior to a new secondary node as a connection destination, the communication terminal selects the new secondary node as a connection destination on a basis of a selection result of the new master node as a connection destination and a predetermined condition,” ([para 0230-0231]: “The third flag may be decided by the target MN 112 by checking the UE capability split condition described earlier. The third flag enables the source MN 102 to determine a third controlling parameter (‘CPC-After-CHO’) based on the third flag. The third controlling parameter determines whether the ongoing CPC can continue after CHO execution, assuming that a CPC condition is still being monitored at the time of CHO execution.” Note that CHO is for MN and CPC is for SN.)
“and in a case where the communication terminal selects a new secondary node as a connection destination prior to a new master node as a connection destination, the communication terminal selects the new master node as a connection destination on a basis of a selection result of the new secondary node as a connection destination and a predetermined condition.” ([para 0224]: “If the second controlling parameter instructs release of the target SCG configuration during CHO execution (‘CHO-Change-after-CPC=SCG-Release’), operations 818 and 820 occur. At operation 818 a CHO execution condition is met. The UE 100 releases the target SCG configuration in the CHO configuration. The UE 100 may then perform CHO execution (e.g. similar to operation 816). Operation 820 is similar to the reporting operation 614 except that the report may include an indication that the target SCG configuration was released.”)
Regarding claim 11, Selvaganapathy discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Selvaganapathy further discloses “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is conditional handover.” ([para 0140]: “At operation 610 the MN1 102 provides to the UE 100 an RRC reconfiguration message prompting (triggering) the UE 100 to perform the handover mobility procedure. This is also referred to as a CHO reconfiguration message herein.”)
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210337449 A1) in view of Da Silva (US 20230379789 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses:
“A communication system comprising: a master base station that is a base station that operates as a master node of dual connectivity in which a communication terminal simultaneously connects to two base stations; and a secondary base station that is a base station that operates as a secondary node of the dual connectivity, wherein” ([para 0075-0076]: “Referring to FIG. 4, an example of a dual connectivity architecture 400 in which features of the present disclosure may be utilized represents a Multi-Radio Dual Connectivity (MR-DC) scenario. MR-DC is a generalization of the Intra-E-UTRA Dual Connectivity (DC), where a multiple receive/transmit (Rx/Tx) capable UEs may be configured to utilize resources provided by two different nodes, which may be connected via non-ideal backhaul, one providing NR access and the other one providing either E-UTRA or NR access. One node acts as the MN and the other as the SN.”)
“in a case where a second connection destination change process is required while executing a first connection destination change process that is a process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination or a process in which a communication terminal changes a secondary node as a connection destination, the second connection destination change process being a process not falling under the first connection destination change process out of a process in which the master node is changed and a process in which the secondary node is changed, the second connection destination change process is started during a condition evaluation of the first connection destination change process and the first connection destination change process is canceled…” ([para 0087-0088]: “During CPC, it is possible that the MN 115 has an urgent need for CHO. In this situation, the MN 115 can ask the SN 103 to cancel the ongoing CPC (e.g., of FIG. 5). For example, the MN 115 can include a “CPC cancel” indication in a SN Modification Request message. In response to the CPC cancel indication, the SN 103 shall send RRC Reconfiguration to the UE 104 to cancel the CPC. After that, the SN 103 sends an SN Modification Request Acknowledge to MN including a secondary cell group (SCG) configuration in a cell group configuration information element (CG-Config IE). When the CPC cancel indication is received by the SN 103, if the CPC is complete, the SCG configuration is the new configuration associated with the UE selected PSCell. Otherwise, it is the old SCG configuration before CPC. Further, the SN 103 performs the CPC-cancel indication by sending an RRCReconfiguration message to the UE 104 to remove the candidate PSCells.”)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose “by transmitting a cancel message from the master base station to a target master node or target secondary node that was configured as a candidate for the first connection destination change process.”
However, Da Silva discloses the missing feature “by transmitting a cancel message from the master base station to a target master node or target secondary node that was configured as a candidate for the first connection destination change process.” ([¶ 0140]: “Upon receiving an SN Release Request Acknowledge message, and upon having determined that the UE 1200 is configured with CPC associated to at least one T-SN 1206, the MN 1202 triggers a cancel procedure (e.g. CPC Cancel procedure, CPA cancel procedure) towards the candidate T-SN 1206 (step 1218), for example by transmitting a message to the T-SN indicating to the T-SN that CPC is to be cancelled (step 1220). “)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhu and Da Silva, to modify the cancel message as disclosed by Zhu, to also be transmitted to a target node as disclosed by Da Silva. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the target node to better allocate resources, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu with Da Silva to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu and Da Silva discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhu further discloses “the first connection destination change process is a process in which a communication terminal changes a secondary node as a connection destination, and the second connection destination change process is a process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination.” ([para 0087]: “During CPC, it is possible that the MN 115 has an urgent need for CHO. In this situation, the MN 115 can ask the SN 103 to cancel the ongoing CPC (e.g., of FIG. 5).”)
Regarding claim 5, Zhu and Da Silva discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhu further discloses “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is conditional handover.” ([para 0002]: “The present disclosure relates generally to communication systems, and more particularly, to apparatus and methods of avoiding simultaneous conditional handover (CHO) and conditional primary SCG cell change (CPC).”)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210337449 A1) in view of Da Silva (US 20230379789 A1) and Hwang (US 20230370907 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu and Da Silva discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose “the first connection destination change process is a process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination, and the second connection destination change process is a process in which a communication terminal changes a secondary node as a connection destination.”
However, Hwang discloses the missing feature “the first connection destination change process is a process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination, and the second connection destination change process is a process in which a communication terminal changes a secondary node as a connection destination.” ([para 0209]: “According to an embodiment of the disclosure, it can be assumed that conditional handover (CHO) and CPA are both configured in the UE. In this case, the UE may determine (or evaluate) whether execution conditions of CHO and CPA are satisfied at the same time, and may prioritize CHO over CPA in operation execution according to a specified rule. The following methods may be used to prioritize CHO in execution. However, it is not limited thereto.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhu and Hwang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Zhu, to prioritize either CHO or CPAC as disclosed by Hwang. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu with Hwang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210337449 A1) in view of Da Silva (US 20230379789 A1) and Hori (US 20220394803 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu and Da Silva discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is make-before-break handover.”
However, Hori discloses the missing feature “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is make-before-break handover.” ([para 0788]: “A first aspect of the present invention provides a terminal apparatus communicating with a base station apparatus by using a first cell group, the terminal apparatus including a receiver configured to receive, from the base station apparatus, a message related to Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection reconfiguration, and a processing unit configured to perform processing for determining configuration for a make before break-handover”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhu and Hori, to modify the technique as disclosed by Zhu, to utilize make-before-break handover as disclosed by Hori. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu with Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu and Da Silva discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose “in a case where MBB handover that is the make-before-break handover is executed, the master base station transmits make-before-break information necessary for executing the MBB handover to a communication terminal that executes the MBB handover.”
However, Hori discloses the missing feature “in a case where MBB handover that is the make-before-break handover is executed, the master base station transmits make-before-break information necessary for executing the MBB handover to a communication terminal that executes the MBB handover.” ([para 0788]: “A first aspect of the present invention provides a terminal apparatus communicating with a base station apparatus by using a first cell group, the terminal apparatus including a receiver configured to receive, from the base station apparatus, a message related to Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection reconfiguration, and a processing unit configured to perform processing for determining configuration for a make before break-handover”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhu and Hori, to modify the technique as disclosed by Zhu, to utilize make-before-break handover as disclosed by Hori. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu with Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210337449 A1) in view of Da Silva (US 20230379789 A1) and Tripathi (US 20210144581 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu and Da Silva discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is random access channel-less handover.”
However, Tripathi discloses the missing feature “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is random access channel-less handover.” ([para 0220]: “For example, in one embodiment, as part of handover command, the target gNB explicitly specifies to the UE which method (i.e., 4-step RA, 2-step RA, and RACH-less) the UE should use to complete the handover process in the target cell. Furthermore, a distinction may also be made by the gNB between CBRA and CFRA although CFRA is typically preferred for handover. In another approach, the target gNB allocates resources and specifies parameters conveying the 4-step RA, 2-step RA, or RACH-less handover configuration to imply the use of a specific method (i.e., 4-step RA, 2-step RA, and RACH-less).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhu and Tripathi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Zhu, to utilize RACH-less handover as disclosed by Tripathi. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu with Tripathi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Zhu and Da Silva discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose “in a case where RACH-less handover that is the random access channel-less handover is executed, the master base station transmits RACH-less handover information necessary for the RACH-less handover to a communication terminal that executes the RACH-less handover.”
However, Tripathi discloses the missing feature “in a case where RACH-less handover that is the random access channel-less handover is executed, the master base station transmits RACH-less handover information necessary for the RACH-less handover to a communication terminal that executes the RACH-less handover.” ([para 0220]: “For example, in one embodiment, as part of handover command, the target gNB explicitly specifies to the UE which method (i.e., 4-step RA, 2-step RA, and RACH-less) the UE should use to complete the handover process in the target cell. Furthermore, a distinction may also be made by the gNB between CBRA and CFRA although CFRA is typically preferred for handover. In another approach, the target gNB allocates resources and specifies parameters conveying the 4-step RA, 2-step RA, or RACH-less handover configuration to imply the use of a specific method (i.e., 4-step RA, 2-step RA, and RACH-less).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhu and Tripathi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Zhu, to utilize RACH-less handover as disclosed by Tripathi. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu with Tripathi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210337449 A1) in view of Selvaganapathy (US 20230379771 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Selvaganapathy discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Selvaganapathy does not explicitly disclose “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is make-before-break handover.”
However, Hori discloses the missing feature “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is make-before-break handover.” ([para 0788]: “A first aspect of the present invention provides a terminal apparatus communicating with a base station apparatus by using a first cell group, the terminal apparatus including a receiver configured to receive, from the base station apparatus, a message related to Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection reconfiguration, and a processing unit configured to perform processing for determining configuration for a make before break-handover”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Selvaganapathy and Hori, to modify the technique as disclosed by Selvaganapathy, to utilize make-before-break handover as disclosed by Hori. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Selvaganapathy with Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Selvaganapathy discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Selvaganapathy does not explicitly disclose “in a case where MBB handover that is the make-before-break handover is executed, the master base station transmits make-before-break information necessary for executing the MBB handover to a communication terminal that executes the MBB handover.”
However, Hori discloses the missing feature “in a case where MBB handover that is the make-before-break handover is executed, the master base station transmits make-before-break information necessary for executing the MBB handover to a communication terminal that executes the MBB handover.” ([para 0788]: “A first aspect of the present invention provides a terminal apparatus communicating with a base station apparatus by using a first cell group, the terminal apparatus including a receiver configured to receive, from the base station apparatus, a message related to Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection reconfiguration, and a processing unit configured to perform processing for determining configuration for a make before break-handover”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Selvaganapathy and Hori, to modify the technique as disclosed by Selvaganapathy, to utilize make-before-break handover as disclosed by Hori. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Selvaganapathy with Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210337449 A1) in view of Selvaganapathy (US 20230379771 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Selvaganapathy discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Selvaganapathy does not explicitly disclose “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is random access channel-less handover.”
However, Tripathi discloses the missing feature “the process in which a communication terminal changes a master node as a connection destination is random access channel-less handover.” ([para 0220]: “For example, in one embodiment, as part of handover command, the target gNB explicitly specifies to the UE which method (i.e., 4-step RA, 2-step RA, and RACH-less) the UE should use to complete the handover process in the target cell. Furthermore, a distinction may also be made by the gNB between CBRA and CFRA although CFRA is typically preferred for handover. In another approach, the target gNB allocates resources and specifies parameters conveying the 4-step RA, 2-step RA, or RACH-less handover configuration to imply the use of a specific method (i.e., 4-step RA, 2-step RA, and RACH-less).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Selvaganapathy and Tripathi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Selvaganapathy, to utilize RACH-less handover as disclosed by Tripathi. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Selvaganapathy with Tripathi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Selvaganapathy discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Selvaganapathy does not explicitly disclose “in a case where RACH-less handover that is the random access channel-less handover is executed, the master base station transmits RACH-less handover information necessary for the RACH-less handover to a communication terminal that executes the RACH-less handover.”
However, Tripathi discloses the missing feature “in a case where RACH-less handover that is the random access channel-less handover is executed, the master base station transmits RACH-less handover information necessary for the RACH-less handover to a communication terminal that executes the RACH-less handover.” ([para 0220]: “For example, in one embodiment, as part of handover command, the target gNB explicitly specifies to the UE which method (i.e., 4-step RA, 2-step RA, and RACH-less) the UE should use to complete the handover process in the target cell. Furthermore, a distinction may also be made by the gNB between CBRA and CFRA although CFRA is typically preferred for handover. In another approach, the target gNB allocates resources and specifies parameters conveying the 4-step RA, 2-step RA, or RACH-less handover configuration to imply the use of a specific method (i.e., 4-step RA, 2-step RA, and RACH-less).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Selvaganapathy and Tripathi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Selvaganapathy, to utilize RACH-less handover as disclosed by Tripathi. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Selvaganapathy with Tripathi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrall (US 20160073427 A1) in view of Deenoo (US 20220394583 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Worrall discloses:
“A communication system comprising: a base station; and a communication terminal capable of simultaneously connecting to a plurality of base stations…” ([para 0056]: “FIG. 1 illustrates schematically the main components of a wireless telecommunications network 10. In the UMTS network architecture illustrated user equipment 50 roam through the wireless telecommunications system. Base stations 20 are provided which support areas of radio coverage 30. A number of such base stations 20 are provided and are distributed geographically in order to provide a wide area of coverage to user equipment 50.”)
“…the communication terminal notifies, among the base stations being connected, one or more base stations satisfying a predetermined condition of data amount information of transmission data held by the communication terminal, and” ([para 0029]: “A third aspect provides user equipment operable to transmit an indication of user equipment uplink buffer status in a wireless communications network in which the user equipment is configured to communicate with one or more base stations using dual connectivity techniques, the user equipment comprising: reception logic operable to receive an indication of a dual connectivity configuration to be used by the user equipment for uplink transmission; buffer status logic operable to structure an uplink buffer status report to group uplink buffer status by one or more scheduler to be used by the user equipment according to the received indication of a dual connectivity configuration; and communication logic operable to transmit the structured uplink buffer status report to the one or more base stations.”)
“the one or more base stations perform uplink scheduling for the communication terminal on a basis of the data amount information that the communication terminal has notified the base stations of.” ([para 0063]: “In one configuration, user equipment may be operable to transmit all uplink traffic to one cell, for example, the small cell. In a co-channel deployment with dual connectivity, the user equipment may have strong downlink signal from a macro cell, whilst having low path loss in relation to uplink transmissions directed towards the small cell. In such a scenario, all uplink traffic can be transmitted from user equipment to the small cell. As a result, an uplink scheduling grant will originate from the small cell and the small cell requires a buffer status report relating to all the uplink traffic bearers.”)
Worrall does not explicitly disclose “wherein in a case where the number of base stations being connected is three or more, transmits a buffer status report (BSR) to one or more base stations selected based on comparing a data amount of transmission data held by the communication terminal to a plurality of configured thresholds, wherein different base stations are notified of the BSR depending on which threshold range the data amount falls within”
However, Deenoo discloses the missing feature “wherein in a case where the number of base stations being connected is three or more, transmits a buffer status report (BSR) to one or more base stations selected based on comparing a data amount of transmission data held by the communication terminal to a plurality of configured thresholds, wherein different base stations are notified of the BSR depending on which threshold range the data amount falls within” ([para 0095-0096]: “The user plane condition may be satisfied if one or more conditions of a buffer status in relation to a time aspect are satisfied. For example, whether the user plane condition may be satisfied may be determined based on the amount of time over which a buffer status (e.g. for one or a subset of bearers exceeds a threshold (e.g. the trigger may be the amount of time a threshold is exceeded). The user plane condition may be satisfied if the amount of increase in the buffer status (e.g. over a unit of time) is larger than a threshold. The user plane condition may be satisfied if a buffer status report (BSR) is triggered or transmitted (e.g. the trigger of the BSR may be associated with the presence of another condition, such as the buffer status for one or more split bearers being above a threshold). In examples, a WTRU may be configured with two thresholds for a split bearer (e.g., for each split bearer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Worrall and Deenoo, to modify the technique as disclosed by Worrall, to utilize a plurality of thresholds for three or more base stations as disclosed by Deenoo. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Worrall with Deenoo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412