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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 10/15/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21, 30 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Application No. 18779947. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims merely broaden the claim limitations of the patented case by omitting certain claim limitations.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Regarding claim 21, U.S. Application No. 18779947 teach, a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), comprising a transceiver and one or more processors, configured to:
Limitations of Claim 21 of the Instant Application.
Limitations of Claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18779947.
receive, from a network, one or more conditions for conditional primary cell, PSCell, of a secondary cell group (SCG) change or addition;
evaluate the one or more conditions for the deactivation of the SCG conditional PSCell change or addition;
determine, a deactivation preference of the SCG;
transmit, in an assistance information message when based on expiry of an SCG deactivation preference indication prohibit timer is not running, information indicating the deactivation preference of the SCG to the network; and
start the SCG deactivation preference indication prohibit timer based on the transmission of the assistance information message comprising the information indicating the deactivation preference of the SCG.
receive a first radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message, the first RRC reconfiguration message comprising a value for a timer associated with sending assistance information related to secondary cell group (SCG) deactivation, the first RRC reconfiguration message indicating one or more conditions to activate a SCG;
determine that the one or more conditions to activate the SCG are satisfied;
activate the SCG based on the determination that the one or more conditions are satisfied;
determine a first preference associated with SCG deactivation;
on a condition that the determined first preference is a preference for SCG deactivation and that the timer is not running, transmit a first assistance information message, the first assistance information message comprising the first preference associated with SCG deactivation;
start the timer based on the transmission of the first assistance information message comprising the first preference associated with SCG deactivation, wherein the timer is configured based on the value;
receive a second RRC reconfiguration message, the second RRC reconfiguration message indicating that the SCG is deactivated;
determine a second preference associated with SCG deactivation; and
transmit a second assistance information message, the second assistance information message comprising the second preference associated with SCG deactivation and the second assistance information message being transmitted when the timer is not running.
Regarding claims 30 and 41 the limitations of claims 30 and 41, respectively are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting with respect to claims 1 and 13, respectively of U.S. Application No. 18779947.
Regarding the claims 21-29 and 31-38 the limitations of claims 21-29 and 31-38, respectively are rejected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim 2-10 and 12-20, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Upon further consideration, the examiner agrees with the applicant that the rejection of the present application (priority date 03/31/2021) being anticipated by Mattam is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). However, the Mattam reference with date of filing of application: 10/22/2020, still qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Therefore, the rejection of the claims is maintained, and the proper form paragraph number will be corrected.
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 21, 30 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mattan et al. (INDIA Pub. IN202041046102).
Regarding claim 30 Mattam disclose, a method performed by a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network, one or more conditions for conditional primary cell, of a secondary cell group (SCG) change or addition para. 58, “sending the indication to the UE to reactivate the deactivated SCG by the UE comprises one of sending, by the network node, at least one of a new information element (IE) in an existing RRC message”;
evaluating the one or more conditions for the conditional primary cell, PSCell change or addition para. 193, “the FIG. 11 consider a proposed method, the above embodiments explain methods wherein the UE (100) evaluates certain events and triggers the deactivation autonomously i.e. without explicit network command”;
determining, a deactivation preference of the SCG para. 16, “the method includes indicating by the UE a preference for deactivation or release of SCG to the network node”;
transmitting, in an assistance information message based on expiry of an SCG deactivation preference indication prohibit timer para. 93, “The SCG deactivation criteria includes one or more data inactivity timer to deactivate the SCG”, information indicating the deactivation preference of the SCG to the network para. 95, “the UE (100) capable of providing an indication for its preference for the SCG deactivation or SCG release may initiate the procedure upon being configured by the network node (200) to provide the indication in several cases e.g. when meeting deactivation criteria, the SCG deactivation based on timers and data inactivity”; and
start the SCG deactivation preference indication prohibit timer based on the transmission of the assistance information message comprising the information indicating the deactivation preference of the SCG para. 30, “detecting, by the UE, whether the SCG deactivation criteria is met includes determining, by the UE, that at least one of the data inactivity timer and the T3xy timer is configured for deactivation of the SCG, starting, by the UE, at least one of the data inactivity timer and the T3xy timer”.
Claim 21 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 30 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 30.
Claim 41 recites a apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 30 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 30.
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 of this title, 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) 22-23 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattan et al. (INDIA Pub. IN202041046102) in view of Yilmaz et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200267631).
Regarding claim 31 Mattam disclose, further comprising:
receiving a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message comprising an indication of the deactivation of the SCG para. 20, “the method includes sending, by the network node, a command to the UE informing about the deactivation of the SCG by the network node” and a behavior of the WTRU after a reactivation of the SCG para. 24, “activating (or reactivating), by the network node, the SCG includes sending to the UE one of RRC reconfiguration and a new Information Element (IE) in an existing RRC message e.g. RRC Resume message including a RRC reconfiguration”.
Mattan does not specifically disclose, performing, based on the RRC message, a random-access procedure after the reactivation of the SCG. However, Yilmaz teach, “For bearers requiring SCG radio resources the SN triggers UE Random Access so that synchronisation of the SN radio resource configuration may be performed”, see para. 53.
Mattan and Yilmaz are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yilmaz in the system of Mattan so the system can determine which Secondary Cell Group configuration is going to be configured as active based on the measurement results. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that user equipment decides to handle each respective SCG configuration out of a multiple SCG configurations according to the best option and its respective indication.
Regarding claim 32 Mattam disclose, wherein the RRC message further comprises configuration information including one or more radio measurement configurations (read as: a RRC reconfiguration) to be performed by the WTRU after the deactivation of the SCG para. 21, “In an embodiment, deactivating, by the network node, the SCG includes sending to the UE one of RRC reconfiguration and a new Information Element (IE) in an existing RRC message e.g. RRC Resume message including a RRC reconfiguration”.
Regarding claims 22-23 the limitations of claims 22-23, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 31-32, respectively.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471