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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 102 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that Baek’s disclosure is being mischaracterized since “Baek discloses that the MeNB request SFN information from the SeNB” and that “this is the opposite direction of information flow”
In response to argument, Examiner respectfully disagree. Cited paragraphs of Baek disclose MeNB calculates frame offset and deliver to SeNB
[0090] The UE 100 may calculate a frame offset between the MCG cell and the SCG cell using the measured SFN/SN information of the MCG cell and SCG cell at step S505. Furthermore, the UE 100 may report the calculated frame offset to the MeNB 200 through an RRC Connection Reconfiguration Complete message at step S506. In this case, the RRC Connection Reconfiguration Complete message may include the information element of the frame offset of the SCG cell.
[0091] In this case, or in accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the UE 100 may report the measured SFN/SN information of the MCG cell and SCG cell to the MeNB 200. The MeNB 200 may calculate the frame offset between the MCG cell and the SCG cell using the reported SFN/SN information of the MCG cell and SCG cell.
[0092] The MeNB 200 may deliver the frame offset information to the SeNB 300 through an SeNB Reconfiguration Complete message at step S507. In this case, the SeNB Reconfiguration Complete message may include the frame offset information element.
Regarding 102 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that “this requires the base station to provide its own frame timing information to the other base station”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., its own frame timing information) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding 103 rejection of claim 3, Applicant argues that “…the NR base station notify the LTE base station of numerology information to enable coordination between these different radio access technologies…”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the NR base station notify the LTE base station of numerology information to enable coordination between these different radio access technologies) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding 103 rejection of claim 4, Applicant argues that “…for enabling LTE-NR resource coordination…”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., for enabling LTE-NR resource coordination) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Baek et al (USPN 20150326371), provided by Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Baek discloses
a communication system, comprising: (communication system comprising [0044], FIGs. 1, 3
a user equipment, a first base station, and a second base station (a UE, FIG. 1 #100, MeNB, FIG. 1 #200, SeNB, FIG. 1 #300 [0044]
the first base station being a master base station and the second base station being a secondary base station configured to perform radio communication with the user equipment provide the user equipment with dual connectivity (first base station being MeNB and second base station being SeNB operable to communicate with UE and provide dual connectivity [0044, 0057-0058, 0062-0067], FIGs. 1, 3
the first base station is configured to notify the second base station of information on a frame timing of the first base station (MeNB providing information about its frame timing by providing frame offset to SeNB based on report from UE [0071-0073, 0077-0079, 0090-0092], FIGs. 5, 6
Regarding claim 8, Baek discloses
a base station being a master base station configured to perform radio communication with a user equipment (base station being MeNB, FIG. 3 #200, operable to communicate with UE [0044, 0057-0058, 0062-0067], FIGs. 1, 3
provide the user equipment with dual connectivity together with an other base station (bae station, FIG. 3 #300, SeNB and MeNB provide dual connectivity to UE [0044, 0057-0058, 0062-0067], FIGs. 1, 3
the base station is configured to notify the other base station of information on a frame timing of the base station (MeNB providing information about its frame timing by providing frame offset to SeNB based on report from UE [0071-0073, 0077-0079, 0090-0092], FIGs. 5, 6
Regarding claim 9, Baek discloses
a user equipment configured to radio communication with a first base station being a master base station and a second base station being a secondary base station (a UE, FIG. 1 #100, operable to communicate with MeNB, FIG. 1 #200, and SeNB, FIG. 1 #300 [0044, 0062-0067]
the first base station is configured to provide the user equipment with dual connectivity together with the second base station (MeNB and SeNB provide dual connectivity to UE [0044, 0057-0058, 0062-0067], FIGs. 1, 3
the first base station is configured to notify the second base station of information on frame timing of the first base station (MeNB providing information about its frame timing by providing frame offset to SeNB based on report from UE [0071-0073, 0077-0079, 0090-0092], FIGs. 5, 6
Regarding claim 2, Baek discloses “wherein an inter-base station interface is used for the notification of the frame timing of the first base station” X2 interface between MeNB and SeNB used for MeNB to provide information about frame offset [0025, 0072, 0073, 0082, 0090, 0092], FIGs. 5, 6
Regarding claim 10, Baek discloses
measure a difference of frame timings of the first base station and the second base station (UE measures differences of SFNs and SNs of MeNB and SeNB [0074-0079]
notify the first base station of the difference as the information on the frame timing of the first base station (UE provide differences of SFNs and SNs of MeNB and SeNB to MeNB [0074-0079]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Tsuboi et al (USPN 20190356460), provided by Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 3, Baek does not expressly disclose “first base station is configured to further notify the second base station of information on numerology used for communication with the user equipment”
Tsuboi discloses first base station/Pcell notifying second base station/PSCell information on numerologies for communicating with terminal apparatus [0108], FIG. 7
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “first base station is configured to further notify the second base station of information on numerology used for communication with the user equipment” as taught by Tsuboi into Baek’s system with the motivation to enable both Pcell and PScell to communicate with terminal
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Tsuboi and in further view of Futaki et al (USPN 20190349906).
Regarding claim 4, combined system of Baek and Tsuboi does not expressly disclose “the first base station is configured to include the information on the frame timing and the information on numerology used for communication with the user equipment in a signaling to notify the second base station”
Futaki discloses a base station/SgNB notifying another base station/MeNB via a Setup Request/Setup Response message including supported numerologies and reference numerology where each numerology includes frame timing information such as subframe duration or number of slots per subframe [0069-0071, 0055]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “the first base station is configured to include the information on the frame timing and the information on numerology used for communication with the user equipment in a signaling to notify the second base station” as taught by Futaki into combined system of Baek and Tsuboi with the motivation to enable dual connectivity for terminal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimoda et al (EP 4106368 A1) FIG. 31
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 THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469