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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number INDIA 202341013471 dated 02/28/2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2024 has been considered by examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) because Fig.2 does not have solid black lines, number, and letter that are durable, sufficiently dense and dark. Examiner notes when submitting with red marking, for example on Fig.2, “203… (support delayed CPA execution during MUSIM operation)” causes the red marking turn to light unclean grey markings. Examiner suggest to use the Priority Document IN2023241013471 Fig.2 as it has durable lines.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard (US-20150257163-A1) in view of Kim’749 (US-20230362749-A1) in further view of view of Zeng (US-20230337030-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dalsgaard discloses an apparatus (paragraph [0040], Fig.4, “FIG. 4 depicts a block diagram of a radio 400 that may be used at user equipment 114A-B…”), comprising: at least one processor (Fig.4:430, processor); and at least one memory (Fig.4:435, memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
transmit, from a first user equipment connected to a first network, an indication of at least one capability to the first network (paragraph [0025], Fig.1, "the uplink 126A may comprise a modulated radio frequency carrying information, such as user data, RRC messages, MAC messages, user equipment capabilities reporting," (i.e., UE able to send a message.)),
wherein the at least one capability comprises a capability to delay execution of (paragraph [0030], Fig.2:204, "At 204, the user equipment 114A may send to the network 110A a Scell activation, operation (delay) time, and/or a Scell delay," and paragraph [0038], "the user equipment 114A may signal at 204 the Scell activation time and/or Scell activation delay on a per individual Scell basis, so that each Scell accessed by the user equipment 114A may be associated with a separate Scell activation time and/or Scell activation delay." (i.e., Examiner pointing to Fig.2 wherein the UE is sending a delay activation of Scell.));
transmit, from the first user equipment, assistance information to a network node in the first network (paragraph [0039], Fig.2:208, "At 208, the user equipment 114A may report measurements to the network 110A during the Scell delay period 294," (i.e., UE is reporting measurements.)).
However, Dalsgaard does not disclose conditional primary secondary cell addition, wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of a request for release of a secondary cell group or a fast return indication; and receive, from the first network, a radio resource control reconfiguration, wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration indicates at least one of the release of the secondary cell group.
Kim’749 discloses conditional primary secondary cell addition (paragraph [0058], Fig.1b, "If two conditions are configured, the user equipment performs the CPAC operation only when both of the configured conditions are satisfied." and paragraph [0060], "In operation 1b-30, if reconfiguration with the MN 1b-10 is also required for the (C)PAC operation, a random access operation with the MN 1b-10 may be required (1b-30)." (i.e., Kim’749 teaches a conditional primary secondary cell (CPAC) is being added as disclosed in Fig.1b.)).
Dalsgaard and Kim’749 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Network data management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the system of Kim’749 in order to enable Dalsgaard to hand of changing and adding CPAC for future generation of network in order to UE of Dalsgaard with reduced signaling (Kim’749, abstract, “The disclosure relates to a fifth generation (5G) or sixth generation (6G) communication system for supporting higher data rates. A method for optimizing conditional primary secondary cell (PSCell) addition/change (CPAC) in a communication system and an apparatus capable of performing the same are provided. The method includes a method for reporting successfully completed (C)PAC-related information and CPAC failure-related information.” and paragraph [0068], “Although storing and reporting information about all successfully completed (C)PAC operations through the successful CPAC report increases user equipment complexity and signaling overhead, usefulness may not greatly be improved. It may be more sensible to trigger a successful CPAC report only for (C)PAC operations that succeeded with difficulty, instead of always triggering a successful CPAC report.”).
However, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 do not disclose wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of a request for release of a secondary cell group or a fast return indication; and receive, from the first network, a radio resource control reconfiguration, wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration indicates at least one of the release of the secondary cell group.
Zeng discloses wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of a request for release of a secondary cell group (paragraph [0097], Fig.4:S401, "S401. User equipment determines that an SCG needs to be released." and paragraph [0098], Fig.4:S402, "S402. The user equipment sends user equipment assistance information message to a network device." (i.e., Kim’749 discloses adding a CPAC, and Zeng discloses of removing old CPAC and adding a new CPAC as shown in Fig.4.)); and
receive, from the first network, a radio resource control reconfiguration (paragraph [0101], Fig.4:S403, "S403. The network device sends a first configuration message to the user equipment." (i.e., receiving a first configuration message that is reading on a radio resource control reconfiguration.)),
wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration indicates at least one of the release of the secondary cell group (paragraph [0102], Fig.4:S404, "S404. The user equipment releases a first SCG." and paragraph [0104], "…The first configuration message indicates the UE to release the first SCG." (i.e., examiner is reading at least one of as other optional and thus do not have patentable weight.)).
Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 and Zeng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Connection management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the Zeng system because of the improvement of mobile communication as of the introduction of dual connectivity in order to enable a device to meet transmission requirements and provide higher services to users and increased flexibility between multiple connections (Zeng, paragraph [0003], “With rapid development of mobile communication, users require increasingly high transmission efficiency of devices. In existing communication technologies, transmission requirements can be met by configuring a technology such as dual connectivity (DC).”).
Regarding Claim 11, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale. Examiner notes Dalsgaard discloses an apparatus (paragraphs [0021]; [0041], Fig.1:110A; Fig.5) comprising: at least one processor (paragraph [0041], Fig.5:530); and at least one memory (paragraph [0041], Fig.5:535).
Regarding Claim 21, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2-3, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard (US-20150257163-A1) in view of Kim’749 (US-20230362749-A1) in further view of view of Zeng (US-20230337030-A1) in further view of Tsai (US-20240107608-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in further view of Zeng discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in further view of Zeng do not disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a multi universal subscriber identity module apparatus comprising the first user equipment and the second user equipment.
Tsai discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a multi universal subscriber identity module apparatus comprising the first user equipment and the second user equipment (paragraph [0063], Fig.7, " FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating example communications between a MUSIM UE and two networks. As shown in FIG. 7, the MUSIM UE 710 is registered to two networks, namely a network A 720 and a network B 730. The MUSIM UE 710 has two SIM cards, including SIM1 712, which is intended to connect with the network A 720, and SIM2 714, which is intended to connect with the network B 730." (i.e., Fig.7 showing a UE comprising two SIM that reads on to first user and second user.)).
Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in further view of Zeng and Tsai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Connection management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement MUSIM of Tsai as its desirable for a user for enable a single device to use multiple profiles and allowing flexibility for without carrying multiple devices (Tsai, paragraph [0061], “a UE may have two or more SIM cards, thus making the UE a Multi-SIM (MUSIM) UE in 3GPP. Currently, the MUSIM UE is popular in the market.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai discloses all the limitation of claim 2.
Tsai further discloses wherein the apparatus does not support maintaining the secondary cell group of the first network in deactivated state in presence of the radio resource control connection with the second network (par.62, corresponding network) (paragraph [0062], "For the MUSIM UE, the software and hardware capabilities of the UE are shared by the SIM cards. In other words, the related capabilities need to be split between the SIM cards. For example, the simplest split of the resources is to only allow one SIM card to enter the CONNECTED mode with a corresponding network. Specifically, the R17 Specification allows the UE to indicate its preference for leaving the RRC_CONNECTED mode for MUSIM purposes. However, instead of releasing connection from one SIM card, it is better to keep the CONNECTION of this SIM card with reduced capability, if it is doable by the MUSIM UE. To allow the CONNECTED mode operations in both SIM cards, the UE may have to release some resources, such as the secondary cell (SCell) or the secondary cell group (SCG), from one SIM card, such that the released resources may allow the other SIM card to enter connection with its corresponding network…" and paragraph [0063], Fig.7, “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating example communications between a MUSIM UE and two networks. As shown in FIG. 7, the MUSIM UE 710 is registered to two networks, namely a network A 720 and a network B 730. The MUSIM UE 710 has two SIM cards, including SIM1 712, which is intended to connect with the network A 720, and SIM2 714, which is intended to connect with the network B 730.” (i.e., Tsai discloses of releasing SCG to allow the other SIM card to enter connecting with its corresponding network.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 12, which is similar in scope to claim 2, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, which is similar in scope to claim 3, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 1 (1st Alternative), and 11 (1st Alternative) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard (US-20150257163-A1) in view of Zeng (US-20230337030-A1) in further view of Kim’749 (US-20230362749-A1).
Regarding Claim 1 (1st Alternative), Dalsgaard discloses an apparatus (paragraph [0040], Fig.4, “FIG. 4 depicts a block diagram of a radio 400 that may be used at user equipment 114A-B…”), comprising: at least one processor (Fig.4:430, processor); and at least one memory (Fig.4:435, memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
transmit, from a first user equipment connected to a first network, an indication of at least one capability to the first network (paragraph [0025], Fig.1, "the uplink 126A may comprise a modulated radio frequency carrying information, such as user data, RRC messages, MAC messages, user equipment capabilities reporting," (i.e., UE able to send a message.)),
wherein the at least one capability comprises a capability to delay execution of (paragraph [0030], Fig.2:204, "At 204, the user equipment 114A may send to the network 110A a Scell activation, operation (delay) time, and/or a Scell delay," and paragraph [0038], "the user equipment 114A may signal at 204 the Scell activation time and/or Scell activation delay on a per individual Scell basis, so that each Scell accessed by the user equipment 114A may be associated with a separate Scell activation time and/or Scell activation delay." (i.e., Examiner pointing to Fig.2 wherein the UE is sending a delay activation of Scell.));
transmit, from the first user equipment, assistance information to a network node in the first network (paragraph [0039], Fig.2:208, "At 208, the user equipment 114A may report measurements to the network 110A during the Scell delay period 294," (i.e., UE is reporting measurements.)).
However, Dalsgaard does not disclose conditional primary secondary cell addition, wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of a request for release of a secondary cell group or a fast return indication; and receive, from the first network, a radio resource control reconfiguration, wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration indicates at least one of an indication to transmit a removal of restriction message.
Zeng discloses wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of a request for release of a secondary cell group (paragraph [0097], Fig.4:S401, "S401. User equipment determines that an SCG needs to be released." and paragraph [0098], Fig.4:S402, "S402. The user equipment sends user equipment assistance information message to a network device." (i.e., Kim’749 discloses adding a CPAC, and Zeng discloses of removing old CPAC and adding a new CPAC as shown in Fig.4.)); and
receive, from the first network, a radio resource control reconfiguration (paragraph [0101], Fig.4:S403, "S403. The network device sends a first configuration message to the user equipment." (i.e., receiving a first configuration message that is reading on a radio resource control reconfiguration.)),
Dalsgaard and Zeng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Connection management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the Zeng system because of the improvement of mobile communication as of the introduction of dual connectivity in order to enable a device to meet transmission requirements and provide higher services to users and increased flexibility between multiple connections (Zeng, paragraph [0003], “With rapid development of mobile communication, users require increasingly high transmission efficiency of devices. In existing communication technologies, transmission requirements can be met by configuring a technology such as dual connectivity (DC).”).
However, Dalsgaard in view of Zeng do not disclose conditional primary secondary cell addition, wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration indicates at least one of an indication to transmit a removal of restriction message.
Kim’749 discloses conditional primary secondary cell addition (paragraph [0058], Fig.1b, "If two conditions are configured, the user equipment performs the CPAC operation only when both of the configured conditions are satisfied." and paragraph [0060], "In operation 1b-30, if reconfiguration with the MN 1b-10 is also required for the (C)PAC operation, a random access operation with the MN 1b-10 may be required (1b-30)." (i.e., Kim’749 teaches a conditional primary secondary cell (CPAC) is being added as disclosed in Fig.1b.)),
an indication to transmit a removal of restriction message (paragraph [0144] Fig.1h, “FIG. 1H is a flowchart illustrating a process of reporting information related to failure of conditional PSCell addition and change” and paragraph [0147], “In operation 1h-30, after completing the coordination, the MN 1h-10 transmits an RRCReconfiguration message including ConditionalReconfiguration IE and OtherConfig IE to the user equipment 1h-05 (1h-30).” and paragraph [0148], “ConditionalReconfiguration IE includes configuration information necessary to perform CPAC. OtherConfig IE may include an indicator indicating the CPAC failure report. Alternatively, when the CPAC failure occurs, the user equipment capable of reporting CPAC failure may always have to transmit an SCGFailureInformation message containing information related to the failure.”).
Dalsgaard in view of Zeng and Kim’749 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Network data management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the system of Kim’749 in order to enable Dalsgaard to hand of changing and adding CPAC for future generation of network in order to UE of Dalsgaard with reduced signaling (Kim’749, abstract, “The disclosure relates to a fifth generation (5G) or sixth generation (6G) communication system for supporting higher data rates. A method for optimizing conditional primary secondary cell (PSCell) addition/change (CPAC) in a communication system and an apparatus capable of performing the same are provided. The method includes a method for reporting successfully completed (C)PAC-related information and CPAC failure-related information.” and paragraph [0068], “Although storing and reporting information about all successfully completed (C)PAC operations through the successful CPAC report increases user equipment complexity and signaling overhead, usefulness may not greatly be improved. It may be more sensible to trigger a successful CPAC report only for (C)PAC operations that succeeded with difficulty, instead of always triggering a successful CPAC report.”).
Regarding Claim 11 (1st Alternative), which is similar in scope to claim 1 (1st Alternative), thus rejected under the same rationale. Examiner notes Dalsgaard discloses an apparatus (paragraphs [0021]; [0041], Fig.1:110A; Fig.5) comprising: at least one processor (paragraph [0041], Fig.5:530); and at least one memory (paragraph [0041], Fig.5:535).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard (US-20150257163-A1) in view of Zeng (US-20230337030-A1) in view of Kim’749 (US-20230362749-A1) in further view of KUMAR (US-20220361065-A1). (Continued from Claim 1 (1nd Alternative) and Claim 11 (1nd Alternative))
Regarding Claim 4, Dalsgaard in view of Zeng in view further view of Kim’749 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 (1st Alternative).
However, Dalsgaard in view of Zeng in view further view of Kim’749 do not disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: transmit, to the first network, a removal of restriction message when the first user equipment does not locate at least one prepared target cell suitable for execution of conditional primary secondary cell addition
Kumar discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: transmit, to the first network, a removal of restriction message when the first user equipment does not locate at least one prepared target cell suitable for execution of conditional primary secondary cell addition (paragraph [0085], “As used herein, a “failure” associated with the CPAC procedure may refer to an event or a condition that results in the UE 120 being unable to establish or maintain a connection with a target PSCell associated with the CPAC procedure…The UE 120 may not detect that a trigger associated with the CPAC procedure has been met or satisfied (e.g., in contrast to the operations described above in connection with reference number 615). For example, the UE 120 may not detect that a trigger associated with the CPAC has been met or satisfied within an amount of time (e.g., indicated by the CPAC configuration)…” and paragraph [0086], " the UE 120 may remain in an RRC connected state with the PCell. In such examples, as shown by reference number 630, the UE 120 may transmit SCG failure information to the PCell (e.g., to the source base station 110-1) indicating information associated with the failure of the CPAC procedure. The UE 120 may stop evaluating the execution conditions (e.g., the UE 120 may stop determining whether trigger events associated with the CPAC procedure are satisfied). In other words, the UE 120 may not be required to (or expected to) continue measurements for candidate PSCell(s) for execution conditions after the transmission of the SCG failure information message. The UE 120 may release the CPAC configuration after the detection of the failure associated with the CPAC procedure or after the transmission of the SCG failure information message." (i.e., Examiner is reading par.85 as in the UE failed to locate a target PSCell with a specific trigger and thus the UE failed. Par.86 leads to UE sending “SCG failure information message” and that is reading on a removal of restriction message.)).
Dalsgaard in view of Zeng in view further view of Kim’749 and Kumar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the system of Kumar in order to enable the UE of Dalsgaard to report of CPAC failure and Kumar further discloses of having the UE performing of CPAC recovery in order to improve the communication of the UE (Kumar, paragraph [0089], “Some techniques and apparatuses described herein enable a CPAC recovery procedure. For example, rather than releasing a CPAC configuration after a failure associated with a CPAC procedure” and paragraph [0090], “For example, the UE 120 may not immediately transmit SCG failure information or perform a cell re-establishment procedure upon a failure of the CPAC. Rather, the UE 120 may be enabled to establish a connection with a PSCell, without releasing the CPAC configuration (or without receiving a new CPAC configuration or a CPAC reconfiguration). This may reduce a latency associated with the CPAC procedure and improve a communication performance of the UE 120 by enabling the UE 120 to add or change a PSCell quicker.”).
Regarding Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 4, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard (US-20150257163-A1) in view of Zeng (US-20230337030-A1) in view of Kim’749 (US-20230362749-A1) in view of KUMAR (US-20220361065-A1) in further view of Kim’216 (US-20200305216-A1). (Continued from Claim 1 (1nd Alternative) and Claim 11 (1nd Alternative))
Regarding Claim 5, Dalsgaard in view of Zeng in view of Kim’749 in further view of Kumar discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
However, Dalsgaard in view of Zeng in view of Kim’749 in further view of Kumar do not explicitly disclose wherein the removal of restriction message is configured to cause release of at least one conditional primary secondary cell addition configuration.
Kim’216 discloses wherein the removal of restriction message is configured to cause release of at least one conditional primary secondary cell addition configuration (paragraph [0167], “when the terminal, in which dual connectivity has been configured, maintains a connection to the base station (or cell) in the MCG but fails to make a wireless connection to the base station (or cell) in the SCG, the terminal is configured to: continuously transmit/receive data in the MCG; and report the SCG radio link failure to the MCG base station such that the base station…can release the SCG in which the radio link failure has occurred, thereby enabling continuous data transmission.” (i.e., Kim’216 UE reporting of failure causes the base station to release SCG. Kim’749 discloses CPAC and in combination Dalsgaard in view of Zeng in view of Kim’749 in further view of Kumar teach the said limitation.)).
Dalsgaard in view of Zeng in view of Kim’749 in further view of Kumar and Kim’216 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Connection management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the system of Kim’216 of to have the network to release the SCG in order to enable continues data transmissions and releasing the SCG for maximize service continuity and user experience (Kim’216, paragraph [0167], “continuously transmit/receive data in the MCG; and report the SCG radio link failure to the MCG base station such that the base station can recover the SCG or can replace the SCG with another SCG, or can release the SCG in which the radio link failure has occurred, thereby enabling continuous data transmission.”).
Regarding Claim 15, which is similar in scope to claim 5, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 1 (2nd Alternative), 6, 11 (2nd Alternative), and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard (US-20150257163-A1) in view of Kim’749 (US-20230362749-A1) in further view of view of Zeng (US-20230337030-A1) in further view of Tsai (US-20240107608-A1).
Regarding Claim 1 (2nd Alternative), Dalsgaard discloses an apparatus (paragraph [0040], Fig.4, “FIG. 4 depicts a block diagram of a radio 400 that may be used at user equipment 114A-B…”), comprising: at least one processor (Fig.4:430, processor); and at least one memory (Fig.4:435, memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
transmit, from a first user equipment connected to a first network, an indication of at least one capability to the first network (paragraph [0025], Fig.1, "the uplink 126A may comprise a modulated radio frequency carrying information, such as user data, RRC messages, MAC messages, user equipment capabilities reporting," (i.e., UE able to send a message.)),
wherein the at least one capability comprises a capability to delay execution of (paragraph [0030], Fig.2:204, "At 204, the user equipment 114A may send to the network 110A a Scell activation, operation (delay) time, and/or a Scell delay," and paragraph [0038], "the user equipment 114A may signal at 204 the Scell activation time and/or Scell activation delay on a per individual Scell basis, so that each Scell accessed by the user equipment 114A may be associated with a separate Scell activation time and/or Scell activation delay." (i.e., Examiner pointing to Fig.2 wherein the UE is sending a delay activation of Scell.));
transmit, from the first user equipment, assistance information to a network node in the first network (paragraph [0039], Fig.2:208, "At 208, the user equipment 114A may report measurements to the network 110A during the Scell delay period 294," (i.e., UE is reporting measurements.)).
However, Dalsgaard does not disclose conditional primary secondary cell addition, wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of a request for release of a secondary cell group or a fast return indication; and receive, from the first network, a radio resource control reconfiguration, wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration indicates at least one of an indication that a conditional primary secondary cell addition condition is to be evaluated after a second user equipment releases a radio resource control connection with a second network.
Kim’749 discloses conditional primary secondary cell addition (paragraph [0058], Fig.1b, "If two conditions are configured, the user equipment performs the CPAC operation only when both of the configured conditions are satisfied." and paragraph [0060], "In operation 1b-30, if reconfiguration with the MN 1b-10 is also required for the (C)PAC operation, a random access operation with the MN 1b-10 may be required (1b-30)." (i.e., Kim’749 teaches a conditional primary secondary cell (CPAC) is being added as disclosed in Fig.1b.)).
Dalsgaard and Kim’749 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Network data management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the system of Kim’749 in order to enable Dalsgaard to hand of changing and adding CPAC for future generation of network in order to UE of Dalsgaard with reduced signaling (Kim’749, abstract, “The disclosure relates to a fifth generation (5G) or sixth generation (6G) communication system for supporting higher data rates. A method for optimizing conditional primary secondary cell (PSCell) addition/change (CPAC) in a communication system and an apparatus capable of performing the same are provided. The method includes a method for reporting successfully completed (C)PAC-related information and CPAC failure-related information.” and paragraph [0068], “Although storing and reporting information about all successfully completed (C)PAC operations through the successful CPAC report increases user equipment complexity and signaling overhead, usefulness may not greatly be improved. It may be more sensible to trigger a successful CPAC report only for (C)PAC operations that succeeded with difficulty, instead of always triggering a successful CPAC report.”).
However, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 do not disclose wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of a request for release of a secondary cell group or a fast return indication; and receive, from the first network, a radio resource control reconfiguration, wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration indicates at least one of the release of an indication that a conditional primary secondary cell addition condition is to be evaluated after a second user equipment releases a radio resource control connection with a second network.
Zeng discloses wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of a request for release of a secondary cell group (paragraph [0097], Fig.4:S401, "S401. User equipment determines that an SCG needs to be released." and paragraph [0098], Fig.4:S402, "S402. The user equipment sends user equipment assistance information message to a network device." (i.e., Kim’749 discloses adding a CPAC, and Zeng discloses of removing old CPAC and adding a new CPAC as shown in Fig.4.)); and
receive, from the first network, a radio resource control reconfiguration (paragraph [0101], Fig.4:S403, "S403. The network device sends a first configuration message to the user equipment." (i.e., receiving a first configuration message that is reading on a radio resource control reconfiguration.)).
Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 and Zeng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Connection management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the Zeng system because of the improvement of mobile communication as of the introduction of dual connectivity in order to enable a device to meet transmission requirements and provide higher services to users and increased flexibility between multiple connections (Zeng, paragraph [0003], “With rapid development of mobile communication, users require increasingly high transmission efficiency of devices. In existing communication technologies, transmission requirements can be met by configuring a technology such as dual connectivity (DC).”).
However, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in further view of Zeng do not disclose wherein the radio resource control reconfiguration indicates at least one of the release of an indication that a conditional primary secondary cell addition condition is to be evaluated after a second user equipment releases a radio resource control connection with a second network.
Tsai discloses an indication that a conditional primary secondary cell addition condition is to be evaluated after a second user equipment releases a radio resource control connection with a second network (paragraph [0063], Fig.7, “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating example communications between a MUSIM UE and two networks. As shown in FIG. 7, the MUSIM UE 710 is registered to two networks, namely a network A 720 and a network B 730. The MUSIM UE 710 has two SIM cards, including SIM1 712, which is intended to connect with the network A 720, and SIM2 714, which is intended to connect with the network B 730.” and paragraph [0074], Fig.9, "After the network A 904 receives the request to release the SCell(s) sent by the UE 902, at operation 950, the network A 904 sends another RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE 902. Specifically, the RRC reconfiguration message at operation 950 includes a SCell to release list indicating the SCell(s) to be released. At operation 955, when the UE 902 receives the RRC Reconfiguration message with the SCell to release list, the UE 902 sends a RRC reconfiguration complete message back to the network A 904 to acknowledge the reconfiguration. Then, at operation 960, the UE 902 releases the one or more SCells according to the SCell to release list, and starts performing the connection setup in the SIM2 714." and paragraph [0075], Fig.9, "After the SIM2 714 on the UE 902 completes the tasks in the connection with the network B 730, at operation 970, the SIM2 714 releases the corresponding connection with the network B 730. In this case, the released SCell(s) maintain released. Optionally, at operation 980, the UE 902 may send a request to add the one or more SCells to the network A 904 with the intent to add the released SCell(s) back." (i.e., Kim’749 discloses a conditional primary secondary cell addition. Tsai enables Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in further view of Zeng UE to have a second SIM to perform operation and to add back SCells when the operation is finished by the second terminal as disclosed in par.75 and Fig.9, thus in combination teach the said limitation.)).
Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in further view of Zeng and Tsai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Connection management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement MUSIM of Tsai as its desirable for a user for enable a single device to use multiple profiles and allowing flexibility for without carrying multiple devices (Tsai, paragraph [0061], “a UE may have two or more SIM cards, thus making the UE a Multi-SIM (MUSIM) UE in 3GPP. Currently, the MUSIM UE is popular in the market.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Tsai further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: delay evaluation of at least one conditional primary secondary cell addition condition until release of at least one resource of the second network (paragraph [0075], Fig.9, "After the SIM2 714 on the UE 902 completes the tasks in the connection with the network B 730, at operation 970, the SIM2 714 releases the corresponding connection with the network B 730. In this case, the released SCell(s) maintain released. Optionally, at operation 980, the UE 902 may send a request to add the one or more SCells to the network A 904 with the intent to add the released SCell(s) back." (i.e., Examiner is reading delay evaluation as in add the SCell of network A after the release of the SIM2 release the corresponding connection with the network B.)); and
and start evaluation of the at least one conditional primary secondary cell addition condition, upon release of the at least one resource of the second network (paragraph [0075], Fig.9, "…Optionally, at operation 980, the UE 902 may send a request to add the one or more SCells to the network A 904 with the intent to add the released SCell(s) back. In certain embodiments, similar to the request to release the SCell(s), the request to add the SCell(s) may be transmitted by a MAC CE or a RRC message, such as a UE assistance information message." and paragraph [0076], "After the network A 904 receives the request to add the SCell(s) sent by the UE 902, at operation 990, the network A 904 sends yet another RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE 902. Specifically, the RRC reconfiguration message at operation 990 includes a SCell to add/modify list indicating the SCell(s) to be added…" (i.e., Par.76 starts the evaluation of SCell after the release of the second network. Kim’749 discloses conditional primary secondary cell, and thus in combination Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai disclose the said limitation.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 11 (2nd Alternative), which is similar in scope to claim 1 (2nd Alternative), thus rejected under the same rationale. Examiner notes Dalsgaard discloses an apparatus (paragraphs [0021]; [0041], Fig.1:110A; Fig.5) comprising: at least one processor (paragraph [0041], Fig.5:530); and at least one memory (paragraph [0041], Fig.5:535).
Regarding Claim 16, which is similar in scope to claim 6, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard (US-20150257163-A1) in view of Kim’749 (US-20230362749-A1) in further view of view of Zeng (US-20230337030-A1) in view of Tsai (US-20240107608-A1) in further view of Wu (US-20230337304-A1). (Continued from Claim 1 (2nd Alternative) and Claim 11 (2nd Alternative))
Regarding Claim 7, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai discloses all the limitation of claim 6.
Kim’749 further discloses when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: execute the conditional primary secondary cell addition configuration and (paragraph [0058], Fig.1b, "If two conditions are configured, the user equipment performs the CPAC operation only when both of the configured conditions are satisfied." and paragraph [0059], "The user equipment drives a predetermined timer T304 when receiving an RRCReconfiguration message including ReconfigurationWithSyncSCG IE in case of PAC and when the configured conditions are satisfied in case of CPAC… If random access to the SN is successfully completed, the (C)PAC operation is considered to be successfully completed, and the user equipment terminates the timer T304." and paragraph [0060], "In operation 1b-30, if reconfiguration with the MN 1b-10 is also required for the (C)PAC operation, a random access operation with the MN 1b-10 may be required (1b-30)." and paragraph [0062], "In operation 1b-40, the user equipment 1b-05 performs a random access operation to a new SN for the (C)PAC operation (1b-40)." (i.e., UE sending a successfully completed the (C)PAC operation.)).
Tsai discloses resume (paragraph [0076], Fig.9, “Then, the UE 902 may add the one or more SCells back according to the SCell to add/modify list, and continue the connection with the network A 904.”).
However, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai do not explicitly disclose resume dual connectivity with the first network.
Wu discloses resume dual connectivity with the first network (paragraph [0067], In response to the determination, the UE 102 can send 322A an RRC resume request message to the MN 104 via cell 124, so that the MN 104 can configure the UE 102 to again operate in the connected state. In response to the RRC resume request message, the MN 104 can determine to resume MR-DC for the UE 102. In response to the determination, the MN 104 can send 328A an SN Modification Request message including an indication to re-establish lower layers for the UE 102 to the SN 106." (i.e., Wu discloses enabling the UE of performing and resuming dual connectivity of Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai UE.)).
Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai and Wu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Connection management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the system of Wu resuming Multi-radio dual connectivity in order to take advantage of high data rate and low latency available during MR-DC (Wu, paragraph [0008], “By resuming MR-DC upon transitioning to the connected state from the inactive state, the UE can immediately take advantage of the high data rate and low latency available during MR-DC.”).
Regarding Claim 17, which is similar in scope to claim 7, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard (US-20150257163-A1) in view of Kim’749 (US-20230362749-A1) in further view of view of Zeng (US-20230337030-A1) in view of Tsai (US-20240107608-A1) in further view of KUMAR (US-20220361065-A1). (Continued from Claim 1 (2nd Alternative) and Claim 11 (2nd Alternative))
Regarding Claim 8, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai discloses all the limitation of claim 6.
However, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai do not disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: transmit second assistance information that indicates a request for release of the secondary cell group, when the at least one condition related to at least one conditional primary secondary cell addition target cell is not met within a configured time.
Kumar discloses transmit second assistance information that indicates a request for release of the secondary cell group, when the at least one condition related to at least one conditional primary secondary cell addition target cell is not met within a configured time (paragraph [0126], "a recovery timer may expire prior to the UE 120 establishing a connection with a PSCell. As a result, the UE 120 may release the CPAC configuration (e.g., may discard the CPAC configuration from a memory of the UE 120). In other words, the UE 120 may remove content associated with the CPAC configuration from a memory of the UE 120. In some aspects, where the UE 120 transmitted first SCG failure information associated with the failure of the CPAC procedure (e.g., as described in connection with reference number 740), the UE 120 may remove content associated with the first SCG failure information from a memory based at least in part on transmitting second SCG failure information (e.g., that indicates that the CPAC recovery procedure was unsuccessful).").
Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai and Kumar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dalsgaard to implement the system of Kumar in order to enable the UE of Dalsgaard to report of CPAC failure and Kumar further discloses of having the UE performing of CPAC recovery in order to improve the communication of the UE (Kumar, paragraph [0089], “Some techniques and apparatuses described herein enable a CPAC recovery procedure. For example, rather than releasing a CPAC configuration after a failure associated with a CPAC procedure” and paragraph [0090], “For example, the UE 120 may not immediately transmit SCG failure information or perform a cell re-establishment procedure upon a failure of the CPAC. Rather, the UE 120 may be enabled to establish a connection with a PSCell, without releasing the CPAC configuration (or without receiving a new CPAC configuration or a CPAC reconfiguration). This may reduce a latency associated with the CPAC procedure and improve a communication performance of the UE 120 by enabling the UE 120 to add or change a PSCell quicker.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai in further view of Kumar discloses all the limitation of claim 8.
Kim’749 further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: transmit at least one measurement result performed on the secondary cell group (paragraph [0140], Fig.1G, "Referring to FIG. 1G, in operation 1g-15, a user equipment (UE) 1g-05 may transmit an RRC reconfiguration message to a base station (gNB) 1g-10. Thereafter, in operation 1g-20, the base station (gNB) 1g-10 receiving the RRC reconfiguration message may transmit an SCGFailureInformation message to a user equipment 1g-05." and paragraph [0141], "The SCGFailureInformation message is used by the user equipment 1g-05 for the purpose of notifying the NR MN 1g-10 or LTE MN (in the EN-DC environment) of SCG failure. The message includes failureType information indicating the type of SCG failure, ID information of a previous PSCell and failed PSCell, cell measurement information," (i.e., Examiner reading the limitation as after the UE failed to add the PSCell the use is able to send cell measurement to the base station.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 10, Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai in further view of Kumar discloses all the limitation of claim 9.
Zeng further discloses wherein the at least one measurement result is configured to cause the network node to determine whether to release the conditional primary secondary cell addition configuration or to configure the secondary cell group with a cell (paragraph [0077], "When the UE and the network device are in a dual connectivity state, and an SCG internal exception occurs, the UE notifies the MCG of a specific cause value through the SCG, and the MCG then notifies the network device of an SCG failure message (SCGFailurelnformationNR) over an air interface. The network device performs different processing depending on a cause value reported by the UE, and may configure SCG release or configure SCG replacement depending on a specific implementation of the network device." (i.e., Zeng network performs configure of SCG or release of SCG based on receiving a failure message from the UE wherein Kim’749 discloses provides various information such as cell measurement information, and conditional primary secondary cell addition configuration and in combination Dalsgaard in view of Kim’749 in view of Zeng in further view of Tsai in further view of Kumar teach the said limitation.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 18, which is similar in scope to claim 8, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, which is similar in scope to claim 9, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, which is similar in scope to claim 10, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim’749 can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648