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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 6, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2023/0118008 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a base station (gNB) comprising: a transmitter (16-30) configured to transmit a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message including information for configuring a secondary cell group to a terminal device (paragraph [0315]-[0317]; and so on, illustrating the transmission of RRC message comprising configuration of a SCG); and controller circuitry (16-50) configured to, when the secondary cell group that is configured for the terminal through the RRC message is in a deactivated state, control to refrain the terminal from performing a first processing that is re-associating a Quality of service (QoS) flow that is associated with a first Data Radio Bearer (DRB) configured for the secondary cell group with a second DRB (paragraph [0315]-[0317]; [0140]-[0143]; and etc., explaining the terminal is refrain to remapping or mapping or reconfigure the QoS flow to a DRB).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a terminal (UE) comprising: a receiver (fig. 15) configured to receive, from a base station (gNB), transmit a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message including information for configuring a secondary cell group from a base station device (paragraph [0315]-[0317]; and so on); and controller circuitry configured to control to, when the secondary cell group configured through the RRC message is in a deactivated state, refrain from transmitting a control Protocol Data Unit (PDU) by refraining from performing a first processing that is re-associating a Quality of service (QoS) flow that is associated with a first Data Radio Bearer (DRB) configured for the secondary cell group with a second DRB (paragraph [0315]-[0317]; [0140]-[0143]; and etc.).
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 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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kanamarlapudi et al. (US 2023/0079972 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the controller circuitry is configured to control so that the terminal does not transmit data (paragraph [0315]). However, Kim does not disclose the data is a control Protocol Data Unit (PDU) through the secondary cell group by refraining from performing the first processing.
Kanamarlapudi teaches the data is a control Protocol Data Unit (PDU) through the secondary cell group by refraining from performing the first processing (paragraph [0091]; [0115]; [0141]; [0162]; [0175]; [0190]; [0212]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the data is a control Protocol Data Unit (PDU) through the secondary cell group by refraining from performing the first processing as taught by Kanamarlapudi into Kim in order to reduce dropping of packets and congestion.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses a radio communication system comprising: a base station (gNB) configured to transmit a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message including information for configuring a secondary cell group (paragraph [0315]-[0317]; and so on); and a terminal (UE) configured to receive the RRC message (paragraph [0315]-[0317]; and so on), wherein the base station device is configured to, when the secondary cell group that is configured for the terminal through the RRC message is in a deactivated state, control to refrain the terminal from performing a first processing that is re-associating a Quality of service (QoS) flow that is associated with a first Data Radio Bearer (DRB) configured for the secondary cell group with a second DRB (paragraph [0315]-[0317]; [0140]-[0143]; and etc.), and configured to control so that the terminal does not transmit data (paragraph [0315]). However, Kim does not disclose the data is a control Protocol Data Unit (PDU) through the secondary cell group by refraining from performing the first processing.
Kanamarlapudi teaches the data is a control Protocol Data Unit (PDU) through the secondary cell group by refraining from performing the first processing (paragraph [0091]; [0115]; [0141]; [0162]; [0175]; [0190]; [0212]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the data is a control Protocol Data Unit (PDU) through the secondary cell group by refraining from performing the first processing as taught by Kanamarlapudi into Kim in order to reduce dropping of packets and congestion.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights