Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The 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.
Claim(s) 17, 24 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (US 20220312282).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 17/24/31, Chang teaches A method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system ([Fig.1 and 0084]), the method comprising:
identifying whether a transmission on a secondary cell group (SCG) is suspended and whether the SCG is deactivated ([0086], “UE determines whether an SCG/DC is configured and whether SCG link quality is good.” And [0091], “The SCG link quality being good described above may refer to ... that the SCG is not suspended), based on a radio link failure detection for a master cell group (MCG) ([0084-0085], when an “an MCG RLF occurs.”);
if the transmission on the SCG is not suspended and the SCG is not deactivated ([0086], “if ... the SCG link quality is good, then the UE performs step 3A.”), initiating a procedure of reporting the radio link failure for the MCG ([0087], “In step 3A, an MCG failure information procedure is initiated to resume link connection. That is, link connection recovery is initiated by transmitting MCG failure information to the SCG.”); and
if the transmission on the SCG is suspended or the SCG is deactivated ([0086], “the SCG link quality is not good, then the UE performs step 3B.” And [0091], “the SCG link quality being not good may refer to ... that the SCG is suspended.”), initiating a radio resource control (RRC) connection reestablishment procedure ([0088], “In step 3B, the UE determines whether the UE has the stored conditional handover configuration ... if the UE does not have the stored conditional handover configuration, then the UE performs step 4B.” And [0090], “In step 4B, an RRC connection re-establishment procedure is initiated to resume the link connection.”).
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.
Claim(s) 18-19, 25-26 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Wang (US 20220167445).
Regarding claim(s) 18/25/32, Wang teaches receiving ([Fig.9 and 0231], “S902. The SN sends a deactivation indication to the UE.”), from a base station ([Fig.9], SN), a first RRC message including an indication of a deactivation of the SCG ([Fig.9 and 0231], “S902. The SN sends a deactivation indication to the UE.” And [0278], “The deactivation indication or the activation indication may be included in a MAC CE, physical layer signaling, or an RRC message.”); and
deactivation of the SCG ([0237], “S904. The UE performs, according to the deactivation indication, an operation of deactivating the SCG.”); and performing radio link monitoring on SCG ([Fig.9, stepS906], the UE monitors SCG in order to be able to receive activation indication from the MN.), based on the indication of the deactivation of the SCG ([0231], “deactivation indication”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Chang to specify deactivate SCG as taught by Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to save energy.
Regarding claim(s) 19/26/33, Wang teaches receiving, from the base station, a second RRC message including cell group configuration information of the SCG ([Fig.9 and 0240], “S906. The SN sends an activation indication to the UE.”); and activating the SCG based on the second RRC message ([0243], “S908. The UE performs, according to the activation indication, an operation of activating the SCG.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Chang to specify activate SCG as taught by Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to convey data between a UE and a base station.
Claim(s) 20, 27 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yilmaz (US 20200359441).
Regarding claim(s) 20/27/34, Yilmaz teaches in case that an indication that a maximum number of retransmissions is reached is received from a radio link control (RLC) entity of the MCG ([0082], “1> upon indication from MCG RLC that the maximum number of retransmissions has been reached.”) and a carrier aggregation (CA) duplication is configured and activated for the MCG ([0082], “2> if CA duplication is configured and activated.”), initiating a procedure of reporting an RLC failure ([0084], “3> initiate the failure information procedure as specified in 5.7.x to report RLC failure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Chang to specify maximum number retransmission as taught by Yilmaz. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to report failure information.
Claim(s) 22, 29 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Parichehrehteroujeni (US 20230284312).
Regarding claim(s) 22/29/36, Parichehrehteroujeni teaches identifying whether a primary secondary cell (PSCell) change is performed ([0168] 5> if PSCell change is not ongoing.”),
wherein initiating the procedure of reporting the radio link failure for the MCG includes, if the transmission on the SCG is not suspended and the SCG is not deactivated and the PSCell change is not performed, initiating the procedure of reporting the radio link failure for the MCG ([0168], “if SCG transmission is not suspended; and [0168] 5> if PSCell change is not ongoing ... [0169] 6> initiate the MCG failure information procedure as specified in 5.7.3b to report MCG radio link failure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Chang to specify determining whether pscell is changed as taught by Parichehrehteroujeni. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to report failure information.
Claim(s) 23 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Lee (US 20180007715).
Regarding claim(s) 23/30, Lee teaches wherein initiating the RRC connection reestablishment procedure includes:
stopping one or more timers if running ([0185], “the UE shall resume all SCG DRBs and resume SCG transmission for split DRBs, if suspended, stop timer T313, if running.”);
resetting a medium access control (MAC) entity; and releasing dual connectivity (DC) if the DC is configured.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Chang to specify stop timer as taught by Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to resume connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (Remark page 11, last paragraph)
“However, "suspended" and "deactivated" are not equivalent states in the relevant art.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner interprets being suspended is equivalent to being deactivated because suspend or deactivate means being inactive. According to specification of the instant application, [0488] of the PG PUB, “In another method, when the reserved bit (e.g., R field) is configured as 0 (or 1), it may mean an indication to deactivate or suspend the cell group (e.g., SCG),” so to deactivate is interchangeable with to suspend. The examiner interprets claimed (SCG) is suspended and the SCG is deactivated” as SCG is suspended or the SCG is deactivated.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, the rejections are sustained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights