DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 15-34 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendments received in the Office on 9/08/2026, the Office acknowledges the current status of the claims: claims 15-34 have been previously-presented.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 9/08/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 15-20, 23-31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0007257 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner addresses each of Applicant’s concerns in the following response.
A. Applicant argues Wang is deficient in teaching the claim limitations since Wang is concerned with dual-connectivity failure detection (Remarks, page 7).
In support of this argument, Applicant contends the events disclosed by Wang are not the same as the recited limitations.
B. Examiner’s response to A above
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s interpretation is not disclosed in the claims. 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., an absence of dual connectivity) 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). The cited portions of Wang, particular to [0096] expressly discloses the features “detect a first event associated with a source secondary cell group (SCG) or a target SCG (Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an SCG failure);
detect a second event associated with a master cell group (MCG) (Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an MCG failure); and
store event related information associated with the first event and the second event for transmission to the network (Wang: [0088-0089], [0095-0100] – the terminal records the SCG and MCG failures before reporting the failures to the network. See also [0138]).
[0096] In operation 601, after detecting that a failure event occurs on MCG side and a failure event occurs on SCG side, a terminal triggers a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure; and during the RRC connection re-establishment procedure, the terminal indicates to a network side that the terminal records reportable MCG failure information and SCG failure information.
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections of claims 15 and 26.
C. Applicant argues “suggestion is not anticipation” with respect to the rejection of claim 20 (Remarks, page 7).
D. Examiner’s response to C above
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang clearly discloses that after a PScell change (as an example), a failure may occur in the PScell change, which necessarily reads on receive an RRC message for primary secondary cell (PScell) change before an occurrence of the first event and/or an occurrence of the second event. [0065] of Wang (cited for context, not newly-cited) discloses these messages are performed on the RRC layer.
Applicant states the same arguments may be made in view of the rejections of claims 26 and 34 (see Remarks, page 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees at least for the reasons discussed above.
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 15-20, 23-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0007257 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses a user equipment (UE) (Wang: Figure 9 with [0035]), comprising:
a processor (Wang: Figure 9, element 610); and
a memory coupled with the processor (Wang: Figure 9, element 620), the processor configured to cause the UE to:
detect a first event associated with a source secondary cell group (SCG) or a target SCG (Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an SCG failure);
detect a second event associated with a master cell group (MCG) (Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an MCG failure); and
store event related information associated with the first event and the second event for transmission to the network (Wang: [0088-0089], [0095-0100] – the terminal records the SCG and MCG failures before reporting the failures to the network. See also [0138]).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
initiate a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure towards a re-establishment network node (Wang: [0096], [0099] – upon failure detection, terminal triggers a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure.); and
transmit the event related information to the re-establishment network node (Wang: [0099-0100] – the terminal sends the failure/event information to the network side.).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the first event is a first failure associated with the source SCG (Examiner notes the terms “first”, “second”, etc. only relate to a numbered event, not a chronological event. Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an SCG failure).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang discloses the UE of claim 17, wherein the event related information includes one or more of the following parameters:
an identifier of a failed primary cell (PCell) in the MCG (alternative or dispositive limitation),
a type of the second event (alternative or dispositive limitation),
a first time period from an occurrence of the first event to an occurrence of the second event (alternative or dispositive limitation);
a second time period from the occurrence of the second event to transmission of the event related information (Wang: [0087] – “…the first time information being a time interval between a time when the terminal records the MCG failure information or the SCG failure information and a time when the terminal reports the MCG failure information or the SCG failure information.”); and
measurement results for the MCG and/or the source SCG when the first event and/or the second event are detected (Wang: [0072-0076] – corresponds to a plurality of measurements results that may be included in failure information.).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the event related information further includes an identifier of a failed primary secondary cell (PSCell) in the source SCG and a type of the first event (Wang: [0066] – “…the failure event occurring on the SCG side that is detected by the terminal may be, but not limited to: a radio link failure occurring on the SCG side; or, an SN change failure; or, a PScell change failure.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
receive an RRC message for primary secondary cell (PSCell) change before an occurrence of the first event and/or an occurrence of the second event (Wang: [0066] – since the failure may occur based on a PSCell change, the disclosure suggests the RRC message initiating a PSCell change before the failure event.).
Regarding Claim 23, Wang discloses the UE of claim 20, wherein the first event is a PSCell change failure occurred during a PSCell change procedure (Wang: [0066] – since the failure may occur based on a PSCell change, the disclosure suggests the RRC message initiating a PSCell change before the failure event.), or an SCG failure occurred shortly after a successful PSCell change from the source PSCell to the target PSCell (alternative or dispositive limitation).
Regarding Claim 24, Wang discloses the UE of claim 23, wherein the event related information includes one or more of the following parameters:
an identifier of a failed primary cell (PCell) in the MCG (alternative or dispositive limitation);
a type of the second event (Wang: [0078-0081] – the disclosure of Wang lists a plurality of failure types.);
an identifier of the source PSCell (alternative or dispositive limitation);
an identifier of the failed PSCell (alternative or dispositive limitation);
a type of the first event associated with the target SCG (Wang: [0078-0081] – the disclosure of Wang lists a plurality of failure types, including failure events associated with the SCG side.);
a sixth time period from reception of the RRC message to the occurrence of the first event (alternative or dispositive limitation);
a seventh time period from the occurrence of the first event to the occurrence of the second event (alternative or dispositive limitation);
an eighth time period from the occurrence of the second event to transmission of the event related information (Wang: [0087] – “…the first time information being a time interval between a time when the terminal records the MCG failure information or the SCG failure information and a time when the terminal reports the MCG failure information or the SCG failure information.”); and
measurement results for the MCG and/or the source SCG when the first event and/or the second event are detected (Wang: [0072-0076] – corresponds to a plurality of measurements results that may be included in failure information.).
Regarding Claim 25, Wang discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the second event is a failure associated with the MCG (Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an MCG failure).
Regarding Claim 26, Wang discloses a processor (Wang: Figure 9, element 610) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one controller (Wang: Figure 9, element 610) coupled with at least one memory (Wang: Figure 9, element 620) and configured to cause the processor to:
detect a first event associated with a source secondary cell group (SCG) or a target SCG (Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an SCG failure);
detect a second event associated with a master cell group (MCG) (Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an MCG failure); and
store event related information associated with the first event and the second event for transmission to the network (Wang: [0088-0089], [0095-0100] – the terminal records the SCG and MCG failures before reporting the failures to the network. See also [0138]).
Regarding Claim 27, Wang discloses the processor of claim 26, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to:
initiate a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure towards a re-establishment network node (Wang: [0096], [0099] – upon failure detection, terminal triggers a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure.); and
transmit the event related information to the re-establishment network node (Wang: [0099-0100] – the terminal sends the failure/event information to the network side.).
Regarding Claim 28, Wang discloses the processor of claim 27, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to:
receive an RRC message for primary secondary cell (PSCell) change before an occurrence of the first event and/or an occurrence of the second event (Wang: [0066] – since the failure may occur based on a PSCell change, the disclosure suggests the RRC message initiating a PSCell change before the failure event.).
Regarding Claim 29, Wang discloses the processor of claim 26, wherein the first event is a first failure associated with the source SCG (Examiner notes the terms “first”, “second”, etc. only relate to a numbered event, not a chronological event. Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an SCG failure).
Regarding Claim 30, Wang discloses the processor of claim 26, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to:
receive an RRC message for primary secondary cell (PSCell) change before an occurrence of the first event and/or an occurrence of the second event (Wang: [0066] – since the failure may occur based on a PSCell change, the disclosure suggests the RRC message initiating a PSCell change before the failure event.).
Regarding Claim 31, Wang discloses the processor of claim 26, wherein the second event is a failure associated with the MCG (Wang: Figure 6 with [0095-0098] – terminal determines an MCG failure).
Regarding Claim 34, Wang discloses a network node (Wang: Figure 9 with [0035]), comprising:
a processor (Wang: Figure 9, element 610); and
a memory coupled with the processor (Wang: Figure 9, element 620), the processor configured to cause the network node to:
receive event related information from a user equipment (UE), wherein the event related information is associated with a first event associated with a source secondary cell group (SCG) or a target SCG related to the UE, and is also associated with a second event associated with a master cell group (MCG) related to the UE (Wang: [0095-0098] – terminal reports to the network side an SCG and MCG failure upon detection of these events.); and
transmit the event related information to a first network node that provides the MCG associated with UE, and/or a second network node that provides either the source SCG or the target SCG associated with the UE (Wang: [0058], [0115] – corresponds to a forwarding action of the failure information in which “…if the second indication information indicates that the target node is an SN, the MN forwards the failure information to the SN; if the second indication information indicates that the target node is the MN and the SN, the MN forwards the failure information to the SN, and the MN also stores a copy of the failure information for network optimization purposes.” That is, a master node (MN, of an MCG) may forward the failure information to a secondary node (SN, of an SCG), and the MN may also store a copy of said information.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0153281 A1 to Deogun et al. (hereinafter “Deogun”).
Regarding Claim 32, Wang discloses a network node (Wang: Figure 9 with [0035]), comprising:
a processor (Wang: Figure 9, element 610); and
a memory coupled with the processor (Wang: Figure 9, element 620), the processor configured to cause the network node to:
receive event related information from a user equipment (UE), wherein the event related information is related to a first event associated with a source secondary cell group (SCG) or a target SCG related to the UE, and is also related to a second event associated with a master cell group (MCG) related to the UE (Wang: [0095-0098] – terminal reports to the network side an SCG and MCG failure upon detection of these events.).
Wang does not expressly disclose or define actions by the network side after receiving a failure notification from the terminal side.
However, modifications or reconfigurations in a dual connectivity architecture upon determination and notification of a failure, either in a Master Cell Group (MCG) or a Secondary Cell Group (SCG), cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Deogun. Deogun is similarly concerned with network systems utilizing dual connectivity architectures ([0002]). Deogun discloses, upon receiving notification of a failure event, the network side is operable to,
modify one or more SCG configurations associated with the UE (Deogun: [0009-0010] – upon receiving a failure notification, one or more SCG configurations may be modified/reconfigured.), wherein the one or more SCG configurations include at least one of the following:
signaling radio bearer (SRB) configuration (Deogun: [0009-0010], [0024], [0077] – corresponds to performing a MCG SRB recovery action, including an SCG reconfiguration.);
data radio bearer (DRB) configuration (alternative or dispositive limitation);
a threshold for triggering PSCell change, PSCell modification, or PSCell release (alternative or dispositive limitation); and
RACH configuration for target PSCell (alternative or dispositive limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the network node of Wang in view of the network side of Deogun to perform one or more failure actions for the reasons of reducing an amount of network interruption in signaling when a failure occurs in an SCG (Deogun: [0008]).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Wang and Deogun discloses the network node of claim 32, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the network node to:
receive the event related information from a re-establishment network node via interfaces between radio access network (RAN) nodes or via interfaces between RAN nodes and a core network (Interpreted to correspond to communication of re-establishment via RRC between a terminal and network side device, as disclosed by Wang in at least [0099]).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 21 and 22 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
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 October 6, 2026
