DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 2/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 3-16, and 18-22 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US20230397297A1), hereafter Zhang.
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20,
Zhang (Title: Methods and Apparatuses for a SCG Deactivation Mechanism and SCG Activation Mechanism in MR-DC Scenario) discloses a method (Fig. 2-10) for controlling a status of a secondary cell group (SCG) by a terminal (i.e. UE) comprising a processor (Fig. 11, processor 1108), memory/computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 11, medium 1106) and a program/instruction executed by the processor (paragraphs 197-200) comprising, when the SCG is in a deactivated status, at the same time as or after a terminal sends first information to a network side (paragraph 32, 38, 117, 137; SCG activation procedure initiated from a deactivated status by different nodes including MN, SN, UE, etc.), performing, by the terminal, a first operation, the first information being used for requesting activation of the SCG (Fig. 2; Fig. 7-8, steps 701, 801) comprising at least one of: monitoring scheduling of a secondary node (SN) (paragraph 2, 31, 42, 81; monitoring PDCCH of activated SCell/secondary node (SN) scheduling the activated SCG); receiving second information sent by the network side, the second information being used for responding to the first information and for instructing the terminal to perform a second operation comprising keeping the SCG in the deactivated status or stopping monitoring the scheduling of the SN (Abstract; Fig. 2-5; paragraph 31, 65, etc.; SCG deactivation procedures); or starting or restarting a second timer (inactivity timer; paragraph 50-55, 78-89), wherein when the second timer is running, the terminal monitors the scheduling of the SN or sets the SCG to be in an activated status (paragraph 55, 78-89; the UE may (re-)start the inactivity timer if any transmission occurs on uplink or downlink on the activated SCG).
Regarding claims 4 and 19,
Zhang discloses at least one of: an SCG deactivating command (Abstract; Fig. 2-5 deactivation procedures; paragraph 31, 65, etc.; SCG deactivation); an SCG activating command (Fig. 6-10; paragraph 3, 6, 31-33, etc.; SCG activation procedure); an acceptance response of the SCG activating request (paragraph 48-49, 121-123; activation acknowledgement in response to activation request/trigger); a rejection response of the SCG activating request or uplink/downlink resource of the SCG (paragraph 80-83); or configuration information of a third timer.
Regarding claim 6,
Zhang discloses the second information is a RRC, MAC-CE, or DCI message (paragraph 103-110, 123; RRC, MAC-CE, and/or DCI).
Regarding claims 21 and 22,
Zhang discloses the first operation further comprises one or more of: keeping the deactivated status of the SCG or setting the SCG to be in the deactivated status (Abstract; Fig. 2-5 deactivation procedures; paragraph 31, 65, etc.; SCG deactivation); activating the SCG (Fig. 6-10; paragraph 3, 6, 31-33, etc.; SCG activation procedure) or starting a first timer configured by the network side or defined by a protocol that, when running, causes the terminal to not send an SCG activating request or the first information.
Regarding claim 8,
Zhang discloses wherein after starting the first timer or a third timer, in a case that a first condition is satisfied, stopping, by the terminal, the first timer or the third timer; wherein the first condition comprises at least one of that the terminal has received an SCG activating indication (Fig. 6-10; paragraph 3, 6, 31-33, etc.; SCG activation procedure); that the terminal has received an acceptance response of the SCG activating request (paragraph 48-49, 121-123; activation acknowledgement in response to activation request/trigger); that a mobility process occurs to the terminal, or that a radio link failure (RLF) of a master cell group (MCG) occurs to the terminal (paragraph 40, 174; link failure on MCG).
Regarding claim 10,
Zhang discloses wherein after starting the first timer, in a case that the first timer expires, allowing the terminal to initiate the SCG activating request on the SCG (paragraph 53-55, 161, 167; inactivity/TAT timer expiry triggering SCG activation).
Regarding claim 11,
Zhang discloses wherein after starting the second timer, in a case that the second timer expires, performing, by the terminal, a third operation comprising one of the following: setting the SCG to be in the deactivated status (paragraph 53-55; SCG deactivation when inactivity timer expires); not monitoring the scheduling of the SN; releasing an SCG configuration (paragraph 73-74, 88, 96, 111; stop transmission/flush buffer/reset variables); sending, through a master cell group (MCG), an SCG activating request, reporting, through the MCG, SCG failure information indicating an SCG activation failure (paragraph 49, 56, 122, 154-157, 170; usage/measurement/failure report between MN/SN); and sending the first information (Fig. 2; Fig. 7-8, steps 701, 801).
Regarding claim 13,
Zhang discloses in a case that a third condition is satisfied, sending, by the terminal, the first information to the SN; wherein the third condition comprises one or more of the following: that uplink synchronization is kept between the terminal and at least one cell in the SCG (paragraph 161, 167, 182, 192; UE and SN still time aligned); that the terminal is configured with a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource of at least one cell in the SCG (paragraph 31); or that the terminal is not configured with a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource of the SCG.
Regarding claim 14,
Zhang discloses the first information carries a cause (i.e. reason) value activating the SCG (paragraph 122, 126, 156, 157, 169, 178).
Regarding claim 15,
Zhang discloses the second timer is configured by the network side or agreed in a protocol (Abstract; Background; paragraph 50-55, 78-89, 161, 167, 182, 192; RRC configuration over Xn interface under 3GPP).
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.
Claims 3, 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Venkata et al. (US20220312417A1), hereafter Venkata.
Regarding claims 3 and 18,
Zhang does not expressly show starting a third timer configured by the network side or defined by a protocol to determine, by the terminal, a time when the SCG is requested to be activated; stopping the first timer, or stopping the second timer.
Venkata discloses analogous art (Title: SCG Activation and Deactivation) including starting a third timer configured by the network side or defined by a protocol to determine, by the terminal, a time when the SCG is requested to be activated; stopping the first timer, or stopping the second timer (paragraph 50, 100; SCG deactivation/activation including corresponding timer that prohibits UE repeating same request; additional backoff mechanism/counter/i.e. timer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Zhang by starting a third timer configured by the network side or defined by a protocol to determine, by the terminal, a time when the SCG is requested to be activated; stopping the first timer, or stopping the second timer, as shown by Venkata, thereby avoiding collisions of multiple activation/deactivation requests in multi-radio dual-connectivity environments.
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Zhang and Venkata discloses the case that the second information comprises the configuration information of the third timer (Venkata: paragraph 50, 100; backoff counter/timer); before or after starting the third timer, setting, by the terminal, the SCG to be in the deactivated status or keeping, by the terminal, the SCG in the deactivated status (Venkata: paragraph 50, 100; SCG deactivation/activation including corresponding timer that prohibits UE repeating same request). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 12,
The combination of Zhang and Venkata discloses, after starting a third timer, in a case that the third timer expires, sending, by the terminal, the SCG activating request, or sending third information to an upper layer, the third information indicating that a status where the SCG activating request is prohibited to send is alleviated (Venkata: paragraph 50, 100; SCG deactivation/activation including corresponding timer that prohibits UE repeating same request; additional backoff counter/timer until activating request is processed/sent). See motivation above.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Cheng et al. (US20190150161A1), hereafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 7,
Zhang discloses MAC CE (paragraph 95, 105, 156-160) and an ID of the SCG (paragraph 86) but fails to expressly show the MAC CE at least comprises a logical channel identifier (LCID) field and/or a numerical field comprising an SCG activating or deactivating indication.
Cheng discloses analogous art (Title: Network Assisted Transmission with Multiple Component Carriers; paragraph 5; SCG activation/deactivation) including MAC CE comprising a logical channel identifier (LCID) field and/or a numerical field comprising an SCG activating or deactivating indication (paragraph 75-76; MAC-CE including LCID for SCell activation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Zhang by providing a MAC CE comprising a logical channel identifier (LCID) field and/or a numerical field comprising an SCG activating or deactivating indication, as shown by Cheng, thereby enabling multiple SCell activation using the same LCID with different values.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Teyeb et al. (US20230308905A1), hereafter Teyeb.
Regarding claim 9,
Zhang does not expressly disclose, after starting the second timer, in a case that a second condition is satisfied, stopping, by the terminal, the second timer, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of: that the second information has been received; that a mobility process occurs to the terminal, or that an upper layer requests stop of initiating SCG activation.
Teyeb discloses analogous art (Title: UE Triggered SCG Suspension/Dormancy/Deactivation/Resumption; paragraph 205, 273; SCG activation/deactivation) including, after starting the second timer, in a case that a second condition is satisfied, stopping, by the terminal, the second timer, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of: that the second information has been received (paragraph 299); that a mobility process occurs to the terminal (paragraphs 295, 300; mobility state; specific type of movement), or that an upper layer requests stop of initiating SCG activation (paragraph 299; timer is stopped when the terminal receives a command to leave the operating mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Zhang by, after starting the second timer, in a case that a second condition is satisfied, stopping, by the terminal, the second timer, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of: that the second information has been received; that a mobility process occurs to the terminal, or that an upper layer requests stop of initiating SCG activation, as shown by Teyeb, thereby enabling different deployment options for multi-radio dual-connectivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 12 of the Amendment, Applicant contends the overall concepts of the present application and Zhang are different because Zhang discusses how to initiate SCG activation while the amended claims define behavior of the terminal when the SCG is in a deactivated status.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang’s cited disclosure clearly relates to both SCG deactivation and activation mechanisms in multi-radio dual connectivity scenario that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as analogous and relevant to the present application and claims, as amended. In particular, Zhang’s disclosure of initiating SCG activation, as characterized by Applicant in the Remarks, would necessarily occur from a deactivated status, as claimed. Therefore, the rejections based on Zhang are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 13-14 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Zhang fails to meet feature A of the claims, as amended, alleging Zhang does not describe monitoring the PDCCH from the SCell at the same time as or after the UE sends the SCG activation trigger. Further, on pg. 14-16 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Zhang fails to meet feature B, contending the claims as amended require keeping the SCG in the deactivated status rather than initiating SCG activation as in Zhang. Finally, on pg. 16-17 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Zhang fails to meet feature C of the pending claims, arguing that the “time alignment timer” is started before the UE transmits the random access request, rather than being started at the same time as or after the terminal sends first information, as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, it is noted that amended claims include alternative language that only requires “at least one of” the first operation features A-C argued above. While the disclosure cited from Zhang at least suggests the features of A and B, as amended, the cited disclosure (paragraphs 55 and 78-89) of Zhang related to the inactivity timer expressly meets the limitation of feature C as amended, describing how the UE may (re-)start the inactivity timer if any transmission occurs on uplink or downlink on the activated SCG. Applicant’s remarks contest the time alignment timer in Zhang but fails to address the cited disclosure related to the inactivity timer. Therefore, the rejections based on Zhang are properly maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477