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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 11/07/2023 has been entered. Claims 3-4 are amended. Claims 7-9 are added new. Claims 1-9 are pending and addressed below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitation “a receiving section that receives a first Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) including information used for at least one of activation and deactivation of non-serving cells and a second MAC CE including information to indicate at least one non-serving cell of the non-serving cells being active indicated in the first MAC CE” lacks clarity. Both first and second MAC-CEs appears to provide information to indicate active non-serving cell. It is not understood the difference between the two information. Claim is, therefore, indefinite.
Claims 5 and 6 are subjected to the same rejection above, as they recite similar limitation. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9 are also subjected to this rejection, by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 4, 8 and 9 expression “the control section assumes …” is not clear. It is not understood the basis for assumption.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a receiving section” and “a control section” in claim 1, “a transmitting section” and “a control section” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHIMODA; Tadahiro et al US 20200077320 A1, hereinafter SHIMODA.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 6, SHIMODA teaches, a terminal (see SHIMODA Fig. 3) comprising:
a receiving section that receives a first Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) including information used for at least one of activation and deactivation of non-serving cells and a second MAC CE including information to indicate at least one non-serving cell of the non-serving cells being active indicated in the first MAC CE (This limitation is interpreted, in line with the Spec, as receiving two different MAC-CEs sent from the network node, one comprising activation/deactivation information of non-serving cells, and another comprising additional information (e.g., beam information) of the cells. Non-serving cell is understood to be a neighboring cell that is to be activated/deactivated for the wireless communication connection – a secondary cell (SCell) is well-known in the art as being such a non-serving cell.
SHIMODA [0757] “The activation/deactivation information of the SCell and the activation/deactivation information of the beam may be different MAC CEs.”, [764] “In Step ST5402, the gNB notifies the UE of the activation/deactivation information of the SCell. The MAC control signaling is used for this notification. The activation/deactivation information is included in MAC CEs to be notified. In Step ST5403, the gNB notifies the UE of the activation/deactivation information of the beams of the activated SCell. The MAC control signaling is used for this notification. The activation/deactivation information is included in MAC CEs to be notified.”); and
a control section that controls transmission/reception to/from the non-serving cell indicated in the second MAC CE (See SHIMODA Fig. 16, ST5405, 5406; [765], [766] “Consequently, the gNB can communicate with the UE via the beam 1 of the SCell.”.
With respect to claim 5, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding method. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 6, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding inter-working base station of the transmitting side. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMODA, in view of TANG; Zhixun et al US 20210251040 A1, hereinafter TANG.
Regarding claim 2, SHIMODA teaches the terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
SHIMODA does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, TANG teaches, wherein the receiving section receives a third MAC CE to indicate non-serving cells for which channel state information (CSI) reporting is activated and a fourth MAC CE to indicate a TCI state for at least one non-serving cell of non- serving cells indicated in the third MAC CE (The claim about using different MAC-CEs for activating CSI reporting and TCI state indication of the non-serving cell. TANG [6] “the activating the first and second SCells in parallel includes receiving on the PCell a second MAC CE for indicating a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for receiving one of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) of the second SCell, … receiving a third MAC CE on the PCell for activating a semi-persistent (SP) channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource set of the second SCell, and performing a channel state information (CSI) reporting process based on the SP CSI-RS resource set activated by the third MAC CE on the second SCell.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SHIMODA to include the features as taught by TANG above for activating or deactivating secondary cells dynamically to adapt to data bursts between the device and the base station. In this way, a high data throughput can be achieved while a low power consumption can be maintained for the device (TANG [0004]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMODA, in view of SUN; Haitong et al US 20230422165 A1, hereinafter SUN.
Regarding claim 3, SHIMODA teaches the terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
SHIMODA does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, SUN teaches, wherein the control section performs CSI reporting for a non-serving cell being active out of the non-serving cells, and does not perform CSI reporting for a non-serving cell being inactive out of the non-serving cells (SUN [43], [45] “FIG. 6b shows a new MAC-CE 650 according to a second option. The second MAC-CE 650 includes a five bit SCell index field and a six bit CSI request field for each activated SCell. The SCell index indicates the SCell that is to be activated and the CSI request indicates the AP-TRS that is to be triggered.”, teaches CSI reporting is performed only for the activated SCell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SHIMODA to include the features as taught by SUN above in order to provide SCell activation enhancement with assistance reference signal (SUN [0001]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMODA, in view of TANG, as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above, and further in view of SUN; Haitong et al US 20230422165 A1, hereinafter SUN.
Regarding claim 7, SHIMODA, in view of TANG, teaches the terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 2.
SHIMODA and TANG do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, SUN teaches, wherein the control section performs CSI reporting for a non-serving cell being active out of the non-serving cells, and does not perform CSI reporting for a non-serving cell being inactive out of the non-serving cells (SUN [43], [45] “FIG. 6b shows a new MAC-CE 650 according to a second option. The second MAC-CE 650 includes a five bit SCell index field and a six bit CSI request field for each activated SCell. The SCell index indicates the SCell that is to be activated and the CSI request indicates the AP-TRS that is to be triggered.”, teaches CSI reporting is performed only for the activated SCell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SHIMODA and TANG to include the features as taught by SUN above in order to provide SCell activation enhancement with assistance reference signal (SUN [0001]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMODA, in view of LIN; Hsuan-Li US 20210111851 A1, hereinafter LIN.
Regarding claim 4, SHIMODA teaches the terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
SHIMODA does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, LIN teaches, wherein the control section assumes that a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state associated with the non-serving cells being active is indicated and that a TCI state associated with the non-serving cells being inactive is not indicated (LIN [5] “The method can include receiving on a primary cell (PCell) at a user equipment (UE) a first medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for activating the SCell, receiving on the PCell a second MAC CE for indicating a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for receiving one of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) of the SCell, … ”, teaches indication of TCI state of activated SCell, therefore, also implying no TCI state indication for inactive cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SHIMODA to include the features as taught by LIN above for activating or deactivating secondary cells dynamically to adapt to data bursts between the device and the base station. In this way, a high data throughput can be achieved while a low power consumption can be maintained for the device (LIN [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMODA, in view of TANG, as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above, and further in view of LIN; Hsuan-Li US 20210111851 A1, hereinafter LIN.
Regarding claim 8, SHIMODA, in view of TANG, teaches the terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 2.
SHIMODA and TANG do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, LIN teaches, wherein the control section assumes that a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state associated with the non-serving cells being active is indicated and that a TCI state associated with the non-serving cells being inactive is not indicated (LIN [5] “The method can include receiving on a primary cell (PCell) at a user equipment (UE) a first medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for activating the SCell, receiving on the PCell a second MAC CE for indicating a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for receiving one of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) of the SCell, … ”, teaches indication of TCI state of activated SCell, therefore, also implying no TCI state indication for inactive cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SHIMODA and TANG to include the features as taught by LIN above for activating or deactivating secondary cells dynamically to adapt to data bursts between the device and the base station. In this way, a high data throughput can be achieved while a low power consumption can be maintained for the device (LIN [0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMODA, in view of SUN, as outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above, and further in view of LIN; Hsuan-Li US 20210111851 A1, hereinafter LIN.
Regarding claim 9, SHIMODA, in view of SUN, teaches the terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 3.
SHIMODA and SUN do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, LIN teaches, wherein the control section assumes that a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state associated with the non-serving cells being active is indicated and that a TCI state associated with the non-serving cells being inactive is not indicated (LIN [5] “The method can include receiving on a primary cell (PCell) at a user equipment (UE) a first medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for activating the SCell, receiving on the PCell a second MAC CE for indicating a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for receiving one of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) of the SCell, … ”, teaches indication of TCI state of activated SCell, therefore, also implying no TCI state indication for inactive cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SHIMODA and SUN to include the features as taught by LIN above for activating or deactivating secondary cells dynamically to adapt to data bursts between the device and the base station. In this way, a high data throughput can be achieved while a low power consumption can be maintained for the device (LIN [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou, US 20240163054 A1 - SECONDARY CELL ACTIVATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM, TERMINAL AND NETWORK DEVICE.
NIMBALKER, US 20240235774 A1 - REFERENCE SIGNAL FOR FAST SCELL ACTIVATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475