DETAILED ACTION
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file: Amendment date 11/20/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Note: U.S.C. 112 rejection is maintained in this office action.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner further reviewed the claims and the Applicant’s Specification in order to determine ways to place this case in better condition for allowance. The Examiner would like to bring three things to the Applicant's attention. First, independent claims 1 and 15 need to overcome the 112 rejections of limitation of effective uplink bandwidth. Second, independent claim 9 need to includes all the limitations recites in the claims 1 and 15 (corresponding invention to avoid multiple inventions in a single application). The Examiner is open to additional features or concepts and working with the Applicants to determine way to help place this case in better condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following limitation(s):
Applicant argues, stated in the remark on pages 8-9, “The term "effective uplink bandwidth" as recited in claims 1 and 15 is sufficiently definite when read in light of the specification and the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art”. On the contrary, examiner disagree with applicant argument that the term “effective uplink bandwidth” is sufficiently when read in light of specification. In the specification, applicant discloses “When the NACK rate is higher than the predetermined NACK rate threshold for the defined TTI slots, the NACK rate for the primary serving cell may be (Opening ending language, which is not controlling definition) compared with the NACK rate of at least one secondary cell” is vague and indefinite whether the NACK rate compared or not. In addition, there is no clear definition of the term “effective” uplink bandwidth in the specification. Based on the reason above, 112 rejection over claims 1 and 15 are maintained in this office action. Since dependent claims 2-8 and 16-20 depend on corresponding independent claim 1 or 15, they are rejected for the same reason as described hereinabove.
Applicant argues, stated in the remark on pages 10-13, “Kumar does not disclose or teach the temporal configuration requirement recited by amended claim 1, specifically "wherein at a first time the at least one UE is in an uplink NRCA session with a first cell configured as the primary serving cell and a second cell configured as a secondary serving cell." Examiner agreed with applicant that Kumar does not disclose or teaches wherein at a first time the at least one UE is in an uplink NRCA session with a first cell configured as the primary serving cell and a second cell configured as a secondary serving cell and the primary/secondary reconfiguration step recited by amended claim 1. Based on reason above, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1 lines 12-16 recite “effective uplink bandwidth” renders indefinite because what are consider effective in the claim language. Similar issue exists in claim 15. Since dependent claims 2-8 and 16-20 depend on corresponding independent claim 1 or 15, they are rejected for the same reason as described hereinabove.
Claim 9 line 3 recites “wherein at a first time” is vague and indefinite because there is no “first time” actually take places in any precedent limitations. Since dependent claims 9-14 depend on corresponding independent claim 9, they are rejected for the same reason as described hereinabove.
Conclusion
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 GUANG W LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7AM-5PMET.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
March 5, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478