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 Amendment and Argument
1. This communication is in response to Applicant's 07/29/2026 communications in the application of Wei et al. for the "COMMUNICATION METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM" filed 05/20/2024. This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/132646, filed 11/17/2022 and claims foreign priority to 202111372467.5, filed 11/18/2021 in China. The amendment and response have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. Applicant’s remarks and argument to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
3. In response to applicant's argument that the combination of cited references fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness. In response, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is not necessary that a “prima facie” case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for “a substantial new question of patentability” to be present as to the claim. Thus, “a substantial new question of patentability” as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications. As to the importance of the difference between “a substantial new question of patentability” and a “prima facie” case of unpatentability see generally In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 n.5, 225 USPQ 1, 4 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102. 904.02. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06 and In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
4. In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection. The Examiner first emphasizes for the record that the claims employ a broader in scope than the Applicant’s disclosure in all aspects. In addition, the Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. Since the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim limitations in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretations while determining patentability of the disclosed invention. See MPEP 2111. In other words, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). Any term that is not clearly defined in the specification must be given its plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.01. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The interpretation of the claims by their broadest reasonable interpretation reduces the possibility that, once the claims are issued, the claims are interpreted more broadly than justified. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the failure to significantly narrow definition or scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to distinctly define the claimed invention.
5. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, i.e., Tseng (US#9,331,833) and He et al. (US#20245/0214174) as proposed in the office action. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
6. Applicant's argument with respect to the rejected claim 9 that the cited reference fails to teach or suggest the “group of carriers” or “multiple carrier group” (page 8, last paragraphs). In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, the reference are applied herein for the teaching of a system and method for optimizing carriers and cell switch off for energy awareness in mobile communications. Applicant’s attention is directed to Fig. 4 of the Tseng et al. (US#9,331,833) for a schematic diagram of a process 40 for performing carrier management in a UE of the wireless communications system 10,. The process 40 includes the following steps: Step 410: Configure a plurality of carriers CC1-CCn (carrier group may include multiple carriers or only one specific carrier). Step 420: Activate or deactivate a carrier group of the carriers CC1-CCn (carrier group may include multiple carriers or only one specific carrier) according to Medium Access Control (MAC) signaling. For example, if the UE enters into an idle mode, the network can deactivate some of the configured carriers of the UE through the MAC signaling, such that the UE is able to stop monitoring all of the configured carriers and save power consumption (the UE is able to activate or deactivate a carrier group of the upper-layer configured carriers according to the received MAC Control Element by switching the operation state of multiple carrier groups). Conversely, the network can also activate some of the deactivated carriers through the MAC signaling, so as to increase bandwidth and transmission efficiency. As a result, the number of aggregated carriers can be switched quickly to respond to the changed condition of the UE (Col. 1, line 60 to Col. 2, line 5 & Col. 3, line 35 to Col. 4, line29: performing carrier management in a UE of a wireless communication system for power consumption). Examiner interprets by toggling of a state of at least one carrier of the set of carriers between an active state and an inactive state, the network power consumption of the set of carriers within the energy cell group can be saved for network traffic. Furthermore, It’s noted that the utility function is based on a power consumption of the set of carriers and a quality of service target for the group of UEs (e.g., a ratio of carriers which are in fully active state and the total number of carriers within the considered network). Multiple energy saving features, such as deep sleep mode, carrier shut down, and radio frequency (RF) channels' switch off can be available, and well known in the art.
Since no substantial amendments have been made and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the claims are drawn to the same invention and the text of the prior art rejection can be found in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 sate. or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
8. Claim(s) 1-2, 12-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng (US#9,331,833).
As to claim 1, the references disclose a novel system and method for optimizing carriers and cell switch off for energy awareness in mobile communications, according to the essential features of the claim. Tseng (US#9,331,833) discloses a communication method, comprising:
receiving , by a terminal device, first indication information from an apparatus at a network side, the first indication information indicating to shut down M carrier groups (Col. 2; lines 13-33: deactivating a carrier group of the plurality of carriers according to Medium Access Control (MAC) signaling), each carrier group of the M carrier groups comprising one or more carriers, M being an integer greater than or equal to 1, and the first indication information comprising identifiers of the M carrier groups (Fig. 4; Col. 1, line 60 to Col. 2, line 5 & Col. 3, line 35 to Col. 4, line29: performing carrier management in a UE. At step 410 - Configure a plurality of carriers CC1-CCn of the multiple carrier groups); and shutting down, by the terminal device, the each carrier group in the M carrier groups (Col. 1, line 60 to Col. 2, line 5 & Col. 3, line 35 to Col. 4, line29: indicate to deactivate the carrier groups. Each of the carrier groups may include one carrier, or may include a plurality of carriers. Some of the configured carriers have to be turned off or deactivated correspondingly, so as to enhance the system performance and save power consumption).
As to claims 2, 12, Tseng (US#9,331,833) further teaches wherein indication information indicates a total quantity of carrier groups, and the total quantity is greater than or equal to M (Fig. 4; Col. 3, lines 41-56: the UE to perform transmission through carrier group of the plurality of carriers CC1-CCn).
As to claims 13-14, they are apparatus claims and have the same subject matter, limitations corresponding to the method claims 1-2 examined above. Therefore, claims 13-14 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1-2.
As to claim 20, this claim differs from claims Tseng (US#9,331,833) in that the claim recites a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Tseng for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claim with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for optimizing carriers and cell switch off for energy awareness in mobile communications, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
11. Claims 5-11, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng (US#9,331,833) in view of He et al. (US#20245/0214174).
Regarding claims 5-6, the references disclose system and method for optimizing carriers and cell switch off for energy awareness in mobile communications, according to the essential features of the claim. Tseng (US#9,331,833) discloses a communication method as examined in the paragraph 5 above. However, Tseng reference does not disclose expressly wherein receiving indication information indicating/identifying of a carrier group corresponding to a first carrier. In the same field of endeavor, He et al. (US#20245/0214174) discloses in Fig. 10 an operational flow/algorithmic structure for an SCell activation, in which the network node can send an RRC message to the UE, where this message indicates the identifier of each component carrier group and the identifiers of the component carriers that are associated with the group (para [0074]-[0075], [0106]: an identifier of a component carrier group and associates this identifier with the plurality of component carriers).
Regarding claims 7-8, Tseng (US#9,331,833) in view of He et al. (US#2024/0214174) discloses a communication method examined above. He et al. (US#2024/0216174) further teaches wherein the third indication information is carried in one of a system message, RRC signaling, MAC-CE, or DCI (Fig. 12; para [0048], [0116]: the grouping of the component carriers can be explicitly indicated to the UE via RRC signaling).
Regarding claim 9, Tseng (US#9,331,833) in view of He et al. (US#2024/0214174) discloses a communication method examined above. He et al. (US#2024/0216174) further teaches wherein the MAC-CE corresponds to a predefined LCID (para [0061]: MAC CE can be used as the SCell activation command and is identified by a MAC PDU sub-header with a unique logical channel identifier (LCID)).
Regarding claim 10, Tseng (US#9,331,833) in view of He et al. (US#2024/0214174) discloses a communication method examined above. He et al. (US#2024/0216174) further teaches wherein one carrier group of the M carrier groups comprises a first carrier associated with a first radio access technology (RAT) and a second carrier associated with a second RAT (Fig. 1; para [0033], [0044]-[0045]: gNB 108 & BS 112).
Regarding claim 11, Tseng (US#9,331,833) in view of He et al. (US#2024/0214174) discloses a communication method examined above. He et al. (US#2024/0216174) further teaches wherein carriers in a first carrier group of the M carrier groups belong to a same power amplifier (PA) or bandwidth (para [0045]: The CCs can belong to a same frequency band).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to apply He’s secondary cell activation based on cross component carrier reference signals into Tseng’s method and apparatus for carrier management with the motivation being to provide a method and system for optimizing carriers and cell switch off for energy awareness in mobile communications.
Regarding claims 17-19, they are apparatus claims and have the same subject matter, limitations corresponding to the method claims 5, 7, 8 examined above. Therefore, claims 17-19 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 5, 7, 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 3, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, 16 depend on the objected claims above.
13. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receiving configuration information from the apparatus, wherein the configuration information is used to configure a candidate primary component carrier; and activating the candidate primary component carrier as a primary component carrier when there is a primary component carrier in the carriers comprised in the M carrier groups that are shut down, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
15. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) 07find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced"
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
16. 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 extension fee 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
18. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
Aug. 28, 2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights