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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 7 and 9-10 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled in this amendment. New Claims 21-28 have been added in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 7 and 9-10 are pending in this application, with claims 7 and 9-10 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 7 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, the claim recites “. . changing a secondary cell . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention
In claim 7, line 10, “when the timer is before expiration” should read “when the timer is not expired”
In claim 7, line 11, “when the timer is after expiration” should read “when the timer is expired”
In claim 9, the claim recites “. . changing a secondary cell . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention
In claim 9, line 8, “when the timer is before expiration” should read “when the timer is not expired”
In claim 9, line 9, “when the timer is after expiration” should read “when the timer is expired”
In claim 10, the claim recites “. . changing a secondary cell . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention
In claim 10, line 12, “when the timer is before expiration” should read “when the timer is not expired”
In claim 10, line 13, “when the timer is after expiration” should read “when the timer is expired”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2022/0132624 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wu”) in view of Chang et al. (WO2022127731A1, hereinafter referred to as “Chang”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9-10, Wu discloses a terminal (Wu Fig.2 Para[0043-44] A terminal), a base station (Wu Fig.2 Para[0043-44] A base station), a method and a system (Wu Fig.2 Para[0043-44] A System) comprising: a receiver that receives a message including a reconfiguration instruction for a secondary cell group (Wu Fig.10 Para[0075-76] A RRC setup-cell group configuration (i.e. ReconfigurationWithsync) message is received from the base station); and a processor that, when adding or changing the secondary cell while the secondary cell group is in an inactive state (Wu Fig.10 Para[0002,0075-76] The cell group configuration message includes special cell or secondary cell configuration (i.e. change), The UE can be in RRC_inactive state), determines whether or not execution of a random access is required for activation of the secondary cell group based on a predetermined timer expires (Wu Fig.10 Para[0029,0075-76] The random access is performed after receiving the cell group configuration from the base station and when the UE determines that an uplink is not synchronized based on time alignment timer expired).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the predetermined timer is configured by a network through radio resource control layer, wherein the processor activates the secondary cell group without executing the random access when the timer is before expiration, and activates the secondary cell group with executing the random access when the timer is after expiration.
However, Chang from the same field of invention discloses the predetermined timer is configured by a network through radio resource control layer (Chang Para[0056] The timers are provided to the UE via RRC message), wherein the processor activates the secondary cell group without executing the random access when the timer is before expiration, and activates the secondary cell group with executing the random access when the timer is after expiration (Chang Para[0094] The random access during PSCell update and SCG activation is performed when alignment timer is expired).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu to have the feature of “the predetermined timer is configured by a network through radio resource control layer, wherein the processor activates the secondary cell group without executing the random access when the timer is before expiration, and activates the secondary cell group with executing the random access when the timer is after expiration” as taught by You. The motivation would have been to reduce power consumption of a terminal (Chang Para[0002]).
Specifically for claims 7 and 10, Wu discloses the terminal that includes a processor (Wu Fig.2 Para[0043-44] A processor) and a receiver (Wu Fig.2 Para[0043-44] A transceiver).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights