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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/16/2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of new ground of rejection presented in this office action, which better addresses the claims as amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification fails to mention a second RRC message without an indication to perform SCG deactivation. At most, the specification in page 9, lines 4-6, only mentions that if the UE does not receive the message/ MAC CE/ DCI, it’s considered that the UE has not received SCG deactivation command. There is no mention of an RRC message without an indication to perform SCG deactivation.
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.
Claims 1, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et
al. (US 20230269607 A1) in view of Rugeland et al. (US 20230262501 A1) and further in view of Yilmaz et al. (US 20220141904 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
WANG discloses “A method performed by a user equipment, the method comprising the
following steps: upon receiving a Radio Resource Control (RRC) reconfiguration message,
which includes an indication to perform Secondary Cell Group (SCG) deactivation” (See
[0063] In the process 300, the network device 110 transmits 302 to the terminal
device 130 an indication to suspend or deactivate the SCG 160 of the network device 120.
[0064] the network device 110 may transmit an RRCReconfiguration message to indicate the
SCG suspension); “re-establishing a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity of an SCG bearer” (See
[0081] upon receiving the SCG suspension indication, the terminal device 130 may perform
one or more of the following: re-establishing the RLC entity of the SCG bearer).
WANG does not explicitly disclose re-establishing a RLC entity of an SCG bearer for a
measurement report.
However, Rugeland discloses “for a measurement report” (See [0134] the UE can be
configured to perform measurements of a suspended SCG for a limited time and only report
the measurement results once the SCG need to be re-activated. Relative to continuous
SCG measurement reporting, such embodiments can reduce UE energy consumption (e.g.,
due to fewer measurements) and signaling with the network (e.g., since only one report is
transmitted). On the other hand, relative to stopping SCG-related measurements when the
SCG is suspended, such embodiments can enable faster re-activation of the SCG when
needed (e.g., when data arrives for an SCG-terminated bearer) due to the network having
up-to-date SCG measurements).
Note: Rugeland discloses that when the SCG is suspended, the UE performs SCG
measurements and transmits measurement reports in order to enable faster SCG re-activation and reduce UE energy consumption. Transmission of such measurement reports
requires signaling via bearers implemented over RLC entities. WANG discloses re-
establishing the RLC entity of the SCG bearer upon SCG deactivation/ suspension.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of WANG, with
the teachings of Rugeland, to utilize the RLC re-establishment procedure upon SCG
deactivation, to enable transmission of the SCG measurement report, and the motivation to
do so would have been to achieve faster SCG re-activation and reduce UE energy
consumption (Rugeland [0134]).
WANG in view of Rugeland does not explicitly disclose receiving an RRC message without the indication to perform deactivation, considering a deactivated SCG to be activated, and initiating a RA process on the SCG.
However, Yilmaz discloses “and upon receiving a second RRC reconfiguration message without the indication to perform the SCG deactivation, considering a deactivated SCG to be activated and initiating a random-access procedure on the SCG” (See Fig. 7, [0335] In Action 4, the MN 110 transmits an RRCResume to the UE 120. In the RRCResume message, the UE 120 may receive an indication that the SCG should be resumed. This indication to resume the SCG may also be signalled as the absence of an indication to suspend the SCG. See Action 6, Fig. 7, The UE performs a random-access procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WANG and Rugeland, with the teachings of Yilmaz, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce signaling overhead and improve signaling efficiency by using implicit signaling.
Regarding claim 10,
WANG discloses “A user equipment, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one
non-transitory machine-readable medium that is in electronic communication with the
processor, and that stores one or more computer-executable instructions that when
executed by the at least one processor, cause the user equipment to” (See Fig. 11, [0136]
The device 1100 can be considered as a further example implementation of the terminal
device 130): “upon receiving a Radio Resource Control (RRC) reconfiguration message
which includes an indication to perform Secondary Cell Group (SCG) deactivation” (See
[0063] In the process 300, the network device 110 transmits 302 to the terminal device 130
an indication to suspend or deactivate the SCG 160 of the network device 120. [0064] the
network device 110 may transmit an RRCReconfiguration message to indicate the SCG
suspension); “re-establish a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity of a SCG bearer” (See [0081]
upon receiving the SCG suspension indication, the terminal device 130 may perform one or
more of the following: re-establishing the RLC entity of the SCG bearer).
WANG does not explicitly disclose re-establishing a RLC entity of an SCG bearer for a
measurement report.
However, Rugeland discloses “for a measurement report” (See [0134] the UE can be
configured to perform measurements of a suspended SCG for a limited time and only report
the measurement results once the SCG need to be re-activated. Relative to continuous
SCG measurement reporting, such embodiments can reduce UE energy consumption (e.g.,
due to fewer measurements) and signaling with the network (e.g., since only one report is
transmitted). On the other hand, relative to stopping SCG-related measurements when the
SCG is suspended, such embodiments can enable faster re-activation of the SCG when
needed (e.g., when data arrives for an SCG-terminated bearer) due to the network having
up-to-date SCG measurements).
Note: Rugeland discloses that when the SCG is suspended, the UE performs SCG
measurements and transmits measurement reports in order to enable faster SCG re-
activation and reduce UE energy consumption. Transmission of such measurement reports
requires signaling via bearers implemented over RLC entities. WANG discloses re-
establishing the RLC entity of the SCG bearer upon SCG deactivation/ suspension.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of WANG, with
the teachings of Rugeland, to utilize the RLC re-establishment procedure upon SCG
deactivation, to enable transmission of the SCG measurement report, and the motivation to
do so would have been to achieve faster SCG re-activation and reduce UE energy
consumption (Rugeland [0134]).
WANG in view of Rugeland does not explicitly disclose receiving an RRC message without the indication to perform deactivation, considering a deactivated SCG to be activated, and initiating a RA process on the SCG.
However, Yilmaz discloses “and upon receiving a second RRC reconfiguration message without the indication to perform the SCG deactivation, considering a deactivated SCG to be activated and initiating a random-access procedure on the SCG” (See Fig. 7, [0335] In Action 4, the MN 110 transmits an RRCResume to the UE 120. In the RRCResume message, the UE 120 may receive an indication that the SCG should be resumed. This indication to resume the SCG may also be signalled as the absence of an indication to suspend the SCG. See Action 6, Fig. 7, The UE performs a random-access procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WANG and Rugeland, with the teachings of Yilmaz, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce signaling overhead and improve signaling efficiency by using implicit signaling.
Regarding claim 12,
WANG discloses “A base station, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-
transitory machine-readable medium that is in electronic communication with the
processor, and that stores one or more computer-executable instructions that, when
executed by the at least one processor cause the base station to” (See Fig. 11, [0136] The
device 1100 can be considered as a further example implementation of the network device
120): “transmit, to a user equipment, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) reconfiguration
message, which includes an indication to perform Secondary Cell Group (SCG)
deactivation” (See [0063] In the process 300, the network device 110 transmits 302 to the
terminal device 130 an indication to suspend or deactivate the SCG 160 of the network
device 120. [0064] the network device 110 may transmit an RRCReconfiguration message to
indicate the SCG suspension); “wherein, upon receiving the RRC reconfiguration message, the user equipment re-establishes a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity of an SCG bearer for a
measurement report” (See [0081] upon receiving the SCG suspension indication, the
terminal device 130 may perform one or more of the following: re- establishing the RLC
entity of the SCG bearer).
WANG does not explicitly disclose re-establishing a RLC entity of an SCG bearer for a
measurement report.
However, Rugeland discloses “for a measurement report” (See [0134] the UE can be
configured to perform measurements of a suspended SCG for a limited time and only report
the measurement results once the SCG need to be re-activated. Relative to continuous
SCG measurement reporting, such embodiments can reduce UE energy consumption (e.g.,
due to fewer measurements) and signaling with the network (e.g., since only one report is
transmitted). On the other hand, relative to stopping SCG-related measurements when the
SCG is suspended, such embodiments can enable faster re-activation of the SCG when
needed (e.g., when data arrives for an SCG-terminated bearer) due to the network having
up-to-date SCG measurements).
Note: Rugeland discloses that when the SCG is suspended, the UE performs SCG
measurements and transmits measurement reports in order to enable faster SCG re-
activation and reduce UE energy consumption. Transmission of such measurement reports
requires signaling via bearers implemented over RLC entities. WANG discloses re-
establishing the RLC entity of the SCG bearer upon SCG deactivation/ suspension.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of WANG, with the teachings of Rugeland, to utilize the RLC re-establishment procedure upon SCG
deactivation, to enable transmission of the SCG measurement report, and the motivation to
do so would have been to achieve faster SCG re-activation and reduce UE energy
consumption (Rugeland [0134]).
WANG in view of Rugeland does not explicitly disclose transmitting an RRC message without the indication to perform deactivation, considering a deactivated SCG to be activated, and initiating a RA process on the SCG.
However, Yilmaz discloses “and transmit, to the user equipment, a second RRC reconfiguration message without the indication to perform the SCG deactivation, wherein, upon receiving the second RRC reconfiguration message, the user equipment considers a deactivated SCG to be activated and initiates a random-access procedure on the SCG” (See Fig. 7, [0335] In Action 4, the MN 110 transmits an RRCResume to the UE 120. In the RRCResume message, the UE 120 may receive an indication that the SCG should be resumed. This indication to resume the SCG may also be signalled as the absence of an indication to suspend the SCG. See Action 6, Fig. 7, The UE performs a random-access procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of WANG and Rugeland, with the teachings of Yilmaz, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce signaling overhead and improve signaling efficiency by using implicit signaling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30 ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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.
/SALMA AYAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2462 /YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights