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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 47-55 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/15/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 40-46) in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) below.
In page 10 of Remark, the Applicant argues that “the technical relationship among these inventions involves the special technical features of: determining whether to transmit beam information after receiving an indication to activate a cell of a third device, and receiving a PDCCH order in a beam determined based on that beam information (Claim 40); receiving beam information after transmitting an indication to activate a cell of a third device (Claim 47) and transmitting a PDCCH order in a beam selected in association with beam information of the cell of the third device (Claim 51).”
This is not found persuasive because the Applicant does not indicate which (same) technical features is/are shared or disclosed in all of Group I, Group II, and Group III. In fact, the Applicant’s argument confirms that there is no same technical features across Group I (claim 40), Group II (claim 47), and Group III (claim 51). Thus, the restriction is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 40, 41, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0361835) in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0150161).
Regarding claim 40, Shen discloses a first device (figure 1 terminal device 120), comprising:
at least one processor (figure 7 processor 701); and
at least one memory (figure 7 memory 702) including computer program code (paragraphs 227 and 229); wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to perform:
receiving, from a second device, an activation indication to activate a second cell (figure 3 step S301; paragraphs 5, 79 and 81: a network device sends first activation signal to a terminal device, the first activation signaling is used to activate first cell which is a secondary cell);
determining whether beam information of the second cell needs to be transmitted to the second device on a first cell of the second device, wherein determining whether the beam information of the second cell needs to be transmitted (figure 3 steps S302, S303, and S304 and paragraphs 82-94) comprises:
determining that the beam information of the second cell needs to be transmitted, in accordance with a determination that at least one of following conditions is fulfilled:
the second cell is an unknown cell (figure 3 steps S302 and S303: paragraphs 82-94: terminal device determines to transmit beam information of the second cell based on the second cell being an unknown cell. The beam information is transmitted on the first cell (primary) to the network device).
Shen does not explicitly disclose receiving a physical downlink control channel order to perform a random access procedure to the third device, wherein the physical downlink control channel order is received in the beam which is determined based on the beam information.
However, in another embodiment (figure 5), Shen discloses receiving a physical downlink control channel order from the third device to perform a random access procedure, wherein the physical downlink control channel order is received in the beam which is determined based on the beam information (paragraphs 27, 34, 156, 199: terminal device receives a PDCCH order to trigger random access of the device based on a selected beam of beam information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Shen receiving a physical downlink control channel order from the third device to perform a random access procedure to the third device, wherein the physical downlink control channel order is received in the beam which is determined based on the beam information.
The motivation would have been to indicate the network device receives the beam information of the first/secondary cell (paragraph 156).
Shen does not explicitly disclose the secondary cell is located in a different device than the network device.
Shen further discloses secondary cell is a concept proposed in dual connectivity in which there are master node base station and secondary node base station (paragraph 69) and master cell group (MCG) and secondary cell group (SCG) in figure 2.
In the same field of dual connectivity, Cheng discloses the secondary cell is located in a different device than the network device (see figures 1 and 2 and paragraph 60: MeNB 204 as Master Cell Group and SeNB 206 as Secondary Cell Group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Shen the secondary cell is located in a different device than the network device.
The motivation would have been for dual connectivity (more bandwidth) (Shen’s paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 41, all limitations of claim 40 are disclosed above. Shen further teaches wherein the first cell is a primary cell or a primary secondary cell (paragraph 5), the second cell is a secondary cell configured with physical uplink control channel (paragraph 5), and the second device and the third device are same (see figure 1 network entity) or different devices (Cheng’s figure 2).
Regarding claim 46, all limitations of claim 40 are disclosed above. Shen further teaches in accordance with a determination that the beam information of the second cell needs to be transmitted, performing a measurement on the second
cell before the reception of the physical downlink control channel order (see figure 3 S303 and paragraph 90).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0361835) in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0150161) in view of Elshafie et al. (US Pub. No. 23024/0154648).
Regarding claim 42, all limitations of claim 40 are disclosed above. Shen does not teach but Elshafie discloses receiving, from the second device, downlink control information indicating a resource in the first cell for transmitting the beam information; and transmitting, to the second device, the beam information of the second cell on the resource in the first cell (paragraph 93).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Shen receiving, from the second device, downlink control information indicating a resource in the first cell for transmitting the beam information; and transmitting, to the second device, the beam information of the second cell on the resource in the first cell.
The motivation would have been for collision avoidance.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0361835) in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0150161) in view of Elshafie et al. (US Pub. No. 23024/0154648) in view of Park et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0132759).
Regarding claim 43, all limitations of claim 42 are disclosed above. Shen does not teach but Park discloses transmitting, to the second device, a scheduling request for the resource in the first cell for transmitting the beam information (paragraph 314).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Shen transmitting, to the second device, a scheduling request for the resource in the first cell for transmitting the beam information.
The motivation would have been for resource for uplink transmission.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0361835) in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0150161) in view of Elshafie et al. (US Pub. No. 23024/0154648) in view of Sambhwani et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0135769).
Regarding claim 44, all limitations of claim 42 are disclosed above. Shen does not teach but Sambhwani discloses releasing the resource after a transmission of the beam information (paragraph 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Shen releasing the resource after a transmission of the beam information.
The motivation would have been to allow resource for another transmission.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0361835) in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0150161) in view of Rahman et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0337525).
Regarding claim 45, all limitations of claim 40 are disclosed above. Shen does not teach but Rahman discloses performing a contention-free random access procedure on the second cell in the beam which is indicated in the physical downlink control channel order (paragraph 291).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Shen performing a contention-free random access procedure on the second cell in the beam which is indicated in the physical downlink control channel order.
The motivation would have been for collision avoidance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights