DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 12 February 2026. Claims 23-42 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 23-25, 27-30, 32-34, and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2023/0336968).
For Claims 23 and 32, Liu teaches a method performed by a User Equipment (UE), for handling Secondary Cell Group (SCG) operation in a wireless communications network, and a User Equipment (UE) configured to handle Secondary Cell Group (SCG) operation in a wireless communications network, wherein the UE comprises:
processing circuitry (see paragraph 10);
the method comprising:
determining a preferred mode of operation associated to an SCG (see paragraphs 35-36: makes determination), and
transmitting, to a network node, a message comprising the determined preferred mode of operation associated to the SCG (see abstract, paragraph 36: informs network);
wherein the method further comprises receiving a configuration from the network node, configuring the UE to transmit to the network node the message comprising the determined preferred mode of operation associated to the SCG (see paragraphs 88-89, 91, 200: the UE is so configured as shown by the transmitting of the message as above; see also Figure 4B, paragraphs 126-129: UE receives configuration information and transmits indication information).
For Claims 24 and 33, Liu teaches the method, wherein the preferred mode of operation associated to the SCG is any one or more out of: an added SCG, an activated SCG, a deactivated SCG or a released SCG (see abstract, paragraphs 36-39, 144).
For Claims 25 and 34, Liu teaches the method, wherein the transmitting the message is performed upon the fulfilment of a triggering condition (see paragraphs 57-58, 196).
For Claims 27 and 36, Liu teaches the method, wherein the configuration further configures the UE to determine a preferred mode of operation associated to the SCG, and transmit the message upon the fulfilment of a triggering condition (see paragraphs 57-58, 195, 200: the UE is so configured).
For Claims 28 and 37, Liu teaches the method, wherein determining a preferred mode of operation associated to the SCG comprises:
determining whether an SCG is to be added, kept or released (see paragraphs 35-55), and
when determined that an SCG is to be added or kept, further determining whether the added or kept SCG is to be activated or deactivated (see paragraphs 35-55: suspend, disable, activate, resume).
For Claims 29 and 38, Liu teaches a method performed by a network node for handling Secondary Cell Group (SCG) operation in a wireless communications network, and a network node configured to handle Secondary Cell Group (SCG) operation in a wireless communications network, wherein the network node comprises: processing circuitry (see paragraph 11), the method comprising:
receiving, from a User Equipment (UE), a message comprising a determined preferred mode of operation associated to an SCG (see abstract, paragraph 36).
For Claims 30 and 39, Liu teaches the method, wherein the receiving is performed upon the fulfillment of a triggering condition by the UE (see paragraphs 57-58, 196).
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.
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.
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(s) 26, 31, 35, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2023/0336968) as applied to claims 23 and 32 above, and further in view of Xu (US 2024/0007840).
For Claims 26 and 35, while Liu does teach the determining and indicating being configurable by the network node (see paragraphs 200, 201), Liu as applied above is not explicit as to, but Xu teaches the method, wherein whether or not the UE determines the preferred mode of operation, and/or whether or not the UE indicates the preferred mode of operation to the network node, is configurable by the network node via the configuration received from the network node, wherein said determining and/or said transmitting is performed according to the received configuration (see paragraphs 32, 36, 43: UE configures SCH as indicated by network; paragraphs 45-46: UE notifies network as configured).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configured the UE as in Xu when implementing the method of Liu. The motivation would be to provide for efficient activation of the SCG.
For Claims 31 and 40, while Liu does teach the determining and indicating being configurable by the network node (see paragraphs 200, 201), Liu as applied above is not explicit as to, but Xu teaches the method, wherein whether or not the UE determines the preferred mode of operation, and/or whether or not the UE indicates the preferred mode of operation to the network node, is configurable by the network node via the configuration transmitted to the UE (see paragraphs 32, 36, 43: UE configures SCH as indicated by network; paragraphs 45-46: UE notifies network as configured).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configured the UE as in Xu when implementing the method of Liu. The motivation would be to provide for efficient activation of the SCG.
Claim(s) 41 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2023/0336968) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Teyeb et al. (US 2024/0196458).
For Claim 41, Liu as applied above is not explicit as to, but Teyeb teaches the method, wherein determining the preferred mode of operation associated to the SCG comprises, according to the configuration:
checking which of multiple possible modes of operation associated to the SCG is determined to be most efficient for the UE to use in terms of expected energy consumption, mobility, or data transmissions (see paragraphs 4, 123); and
determining the preferred mode of operation associated to the SCG as being the mode of operation determined to be most efficient for the UE to use according to said checking (see paragraphs 71-72).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the UE manage the SCG mode according to the conditions at the UE as in Teyeb when implementing the method of Liu. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of ensuring appropriate resource management.
For Claim 42, Liu as applied above is not explicit as to, but Teyeb teaches the method, wherein determining the preferred mode of operation associated to the SCG comprises, according to the configuration:
determining the preferred mode of operation to be release of the SCG based on the UE having mobility above a mobility threshold and/or based on the UE expecting to be without data transmissions for an amount of time above a time threshold (see paragraphs 4, 123); or
determining the preferred mode of operation to be inactivation of the SCG based on the UE having mobility below the mobility threshold and/or based on the UE expecting to be without data transmissions for an amount of time below the time threshold (see paragraphs 4, 123, 71-72).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the UE manage the SCG mode according to the conditions at the UE as in Teyeb when implementing the method of Liu. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of ensuring appropriate resource management.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered, but are either not persuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection introduced herein. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103.
With regards to the configuration of the UE, it can be clearly seen that the UE informs the network of the mode of SCG operation (first or second indication information). The UE is clearly configured to do this. With regards to the order of operations in Liu, please also consider Figure 4B and paragraphs 126-128. The UE receives reconfiguration information and then transmits more indication information to the network. The UE is obviously configured to transmit the information about the SCG mode by the reconfiguration message because the transmission is in response thereto. If applicant is ascribing particular features to the configuration process, then such features should be claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Teyeb et al. (US 2024/0323873) teaches a UE configuring an SCG and indicating this to the network accordingly. Wang et al. (US 2023/0388882) teaches a system in which a UE may manage an SCG based on data volume over time. Shrivastava et al. (US 2024/0196195) teaches a system in which a UE determines whether to active an SCG based on data rate, power, etc. Xu et al. (US 2022/0116874) teaches the UE deactivating an SCG if no data to transmit.
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 CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 3/5/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466