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 Amendment
The amendment filed 6/17/2026 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-3 have been amended.
Claims 1-3 are pending in this application.
Based on the amendments filed 6/17/2026, the objections to claims 1-3 have been cured. Therefore, the objections to claims 1-3 have been withdrawn.
Based on the amendments filed 6/17/2026, the 112 rejection for claims 1-3 has been cured. Therefore, the rejection for claims 1-3 has been withdrawn.
Based on the amendments filed 6/17/2026, claims 1-2 no longer invoke 112f interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art Zhang and Wu, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the unique combination and arrangement of features such as “in a case of determining that the signalling includes no information indicating that the beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG, the processing circuitry configures a beam failure instance counter (BFI_COUNTER) of the PSCell of the deactivated SCG to 0” as recited in claims 1-3. Arguing that Zhang is completely silent regarding any BFI_COUNTER of the PSCell. And that although Wu teaches a BFI_COUNTER is set to 0 if BFD is unnecessary, the teaching of the BFD and BFR procedures not being needed when the SN of the UE is in the deactivated state fails to describe whether BFD is unnecessary in a case of the signalling including no information indicating that the beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG. Lastly stating that Examiner admitted in the previous Office Action that the deactivation indication does not itself include the information to not perform BFD, and instead BFD is merely not needed when the SN of the UE is in the deactivated state. (see Remarks Pg. 6-8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art reference Wu discloses a UE receiving a deactivation indication from a base station, where the beam failure detection and recovery are disclosed as not needed. Since neither of these are needed, then there would be no indication in the deactivation indication signalling to perform them, as it would be unnecessary to indicate a function that does not need to be performed. Therefore, the deactivation signalling of Wu does not include information that beam failure detection needs to be performed when the SCG is deactivated, as it does not say that it does or would need to. The claim language in question “in a case of determining that the signalling includes no information indicating that the beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG” is broad enough that any message from the base station not containing explicit indication to perform BFD would read on this limitation. Also, the deactivation indication of Wu stops the beam failure detecting timer, as beam failure detection and recovery is not needed, which further shows that the signalling does not include information to perform beam failure detection. As such, the reference Wu reads on the limitation as currently presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2024/0147332 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”, in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0073984 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Wu”.
Re. Claim 1, Zhang teaches:
A terminal apparatus (Fig. 1 & ¶0027 UE 101 may be referred to as a subscriber unit, a mobile, a mobile station, a user, a terminal, a mobile terminal, a wireless terminal, a fixed terminal, a subscriber station, a user terminal, or a device, or described using other terminology used in the art.)
for communicating with a base station apparatus, (Fig. 1 & ¶0023 MN 102 may refer to a radio access node that provides a control plane connection to the core network. In an embodiment of the present application, in the E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (EN-DC) scenario, MN 102 may be an eNB. [i.e. MN 102 is a eNB (base station) in communication with the terminal 101 as shown in Fig. 1])
the terminal apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to communicate with the base station apparatus using a master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG); (Fig. 1 shows UE 101 and communication paths with MN and SN & ¶0024 MN 102 may be associated with a MCG. & ¶0026 SN 103 may be associated with a SCG. & ¶0147-¶0148 FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary block diagram of an apparatus in accordance with some embodiments of the present application. In some embodiments of the present application, the apparatus 800 may be a UE. the apparatus 800 may include at least one receiver 802, at least one transmitter 804, at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 806, and at least one processor 808)
and a receiver configured to receive signalling from the base station apparatus, (¶0063 in case of a SN initiated SCG (de)activation procedure, the state information for the SCell(s) can be included in one of: [0065] The same RRC message (e.g., RRCReconfiguration Message), which is used to activate or deactivate the SCG, sent from the MN to the UE. [i.e. receiving signalling from the base station] & ¶0147-¶0148 FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary block diagram of an apparatus in accordance with some embodiments of the present application. In some embodiments of the present application, the apparatus 800 may be a UE. the apparatus 800 may include at least one receiver 802, at least one transmitter 804, at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 806, and at least one processor 808)
wherein the MCG includes at least a primary cell (PCell), (¶0024 MN 102 may be associated with a MCG. The MCG may refer to a group of serving cells associated with MN 102, and may include a primary cell (PCell) and optionally one or more SCells of the MCG.)
the SCG includes at least a primary SCG cell (PSCell), (¶0026 SN 103 may be associated with a SCG. The SCG may refer to a group of serving cells associated with SN 103, and may include a primary secondary cell (PSCell) and optionally one or more SCells.)
the processing circuitry deactivates the SCG in a case of receiving the signalling notifying that the SCG is to be in a deactivated state from the base station apparatus, (¶0063 in case of a SN initiated SCG (de)activation procedure, the state information for the SCell(s) can be included in one of: [0065] The same RRC message (e.g., RRCReconfiguration Message), which is used to activate or deactivate the SCG, sent from the MN to the UE. [i.e. RRC message (signalling) notifying the UE to deactivate the SCG, which includes state information of the SCG])
and determines whether the signalling includes information indicating that beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG, (¶0079 the UE's behaviour(s) is configurable during a SCG deactivation procedure. In an embodiment, when the MN or the SN deactivates the SCG, the MN or the SN indicates, to the UE, at least one of following configuration information regarding the UE's behaviour(s): ¶0083 (4) Information indicating whether the UE performs a beam failure detection operation when the SCG is deactivated. [i.e. UE determines from this information whether beam failure detection is performed in the deactivated state of the SCG])
Yet, the reference does not explicitly teach: in a case of determining that the signalling includes no information indicating that the beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG, the processing circuitry configures a beam failure instance counter (BFI_COUNTER) of the PSCell of the deactivated SCG to 0.
However, in the analogous art, Wu teaches such limitations:
in a case of determining that the signalling includes no information indicating that the beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG, (¶¶0126, 0127. The UE receives a deactivation indication from a MN, and that UE adopt case C-1, case C-2 or Case C-3 ¶0133 3. Case C-3: Both BFD and BFR procedures are not needed when the SN of the UE is in the deactivated state. In particular, in Step 3, if the UE receives a deactivation indication or determines an expiry of a timer associated with deactivating the SN of the UE, the UE sets a beam failure instance counter (e.g., BFI_COUNTER) to 0 and stops a beam failure detecting timer (e.g., BeamFailureDetectionTimer). [i.e. the BFD (beam failure detection) is not needed when SCG is in a deactivated state and therefore not performed after the UE receives a deactivation indication for the SN (SCG). The deactivation indication does not itself include the information to not perform BFD but rather causes the device to not perform BFD upon reception of the deactivation indication in part by stopping the beam failure detecting timer])
the processing circuitry configures a beam failure instance counter (BFI_COUNTER) of the PSCell of the deactivated SCG to 0. (¶0021 SN 103 may be associated with a secondary cell group (SCG). The SCG may refer to a group of serving cells associated with SN 103, and may include a primary secondary cell (PSCell) & ¶0133 Case C-3: Both BFD and BFR procedures are not needed when the SN of the UE is in the deactivated state. In particular, in Step 3, if the UE receives a deactivation indication or determines an expiry of a timer associated with deactivating the SN of the UE, the UE sets a beam failure instance counter (e.g., BFI_COUNTER) to 0 and stops a beam failure detecting timer (e.g., BeamFailureDetectionTimer). [i.e. when BFD is not performed due to an SCG deactivation indication, the BFI_COUNTER is set to 0, which would be for the SCG that is shown above to include a PSCell])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang’s invention of methods and apparatuses for deactivating and activating a SCG in a MR-DC scenario to include Wu’s teaching of determining the deactivation signalling includes no information indicating beam failure detection to be performed during a deactivated state of the SCG, because it provides enhanced mechanisms in an clear and efficient manner relating to a UE’s new behaviors associated with beam failure detection when the SN of the UE is in a deactivated state. (see Wu ¶0037-¶0038)
Re. Claim 2, Zhang teaches:
A base station apparatus for communicating with a terminal apparatus, (Fig. 1 shows UE 101 and communication paths with MN and SN & ¶0023 MN 102 may refer to a radio access node that provides a control plane connection to the core network. In an embodiment of the present application, in the E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (EN-DC) scenario, MN 102 may be an eNB. [i.e. MN 102 is a base station in communication with the terminal 101, as shown in Fig. 1])
the base station apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to communicate with the terminal apparatus; (Fig. 1 & ¶0023 MN 102 may refer to a radio access node that provides a control plane connection to the core network. In an embodiment of the present application, in the E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (EN-DC) scenario, MN 102 may be an eNB. [i.e. MN 102 is a eNB (base station) in communication with the terminal 101 as shown in Fig. 1. A base station as disclosed would contain processing circuitry for operation])
and a transmitter configured to transmit signalling to the terminal apparatus, (Fig. 1 & ¶0023 MN 102 may refer to a radio access node that provides a control plane connection to the core network. In an embodiment of the present application, in the E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (EN-DC) scenario, MN 102 may be an eNB. [i.e. MN 102 is a eNB (base station) in communication with the terminal 101 as shown in Fig. 1. A base station as disclosed would contain transmitter circuitry for operation on the network])
wherein a secondary cell group (SCG) configured for the terminal apparatus includes at least a primary SCG cell (PSCell), (¶0026 SN 103 may be associated with a SCG. The SCG may refer to a group of serving cells associated with SN 103, and may include a primary secondary cell (PSCell) and optionally one or more SCells.)
the signalling notifying that the SCG is to be in a deactivated state is transmitted to the terminal apparatus to cause the terminal apparatus to deactivate the SCG, (¶0063 in case of a SN initiated SCG (de)activation procedure, the state information for the SCell(s) can be included in one of: [0065] The same RRC message (e.g., RRCReconfiguration Message), which is used to activate or deactivate the SCG, sent from the MN to the UE. [i.e. RRC message (signalling) from the MN notifying the UE to deactivate the SCG, which includes state information of the SCG])
the terminal apparatus is caused to determine whether the signalling includes information indicating that beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG, (¶0079 the UE's behaviour(s) is configurable during a SCG deactivation procedure. In an embodiment, when the MN or the SN deactivates the SCG, the MN or the SN indicates, to the UE, at least one of following configuration information regarding the UE's behaviour(s): ¶0083 (4) Information indicating whether the UE performs a beam failure detection operation when the SCG is deactivated. [i.e. UE determines from this information whether beam failure detection is performed in the deactivated state of the SCG])
Yet, the reference does not explicitly teach: and in a case that the terminal apparatus determines that the signalling includes no information indicating that beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG, the terminal apparatus is caused to configure a beam failure instance counter (BFI_COUNTER) of the PSCeII of the deactivated SCG to 0.
However, in the analogous art, Wu teaches such limitations:
and in a case that the terminal apparatus determines that the signalling includes no information indicating that beam failure detection is to be performed in the deactivated state of the SCG, (¶¶0126, 0127. The UE receives a deactivation indication from a MN, and that UE adopt case C-1, case C-2 or Case C-3 ¶0133 3. Case C-3: Both BFD and BFR procedures are not needed when the SN of the UE is in the deactivated state. In particular, in Step 3, if the UE receives a deactivation indication or determines an expiry of a timer associated with deactivating the SN of the UE, the UE sets a beam failure instance counter (e.g., BFI_COUNTER) to 0 and stops a beam failure detecting timer (e.g., BeamFailureDetectionTimer). [i.e. the BFD (beam failure detection) is not needed when SCG is in a deactivated state and therefore not performed after the UE receives a deactivation indication for the SN (SCG). The deactivation indication does not include the information to not perform BFD but rather causes the device to not perform BFD upon reception of the deactivation indication in part by stopping the beam failure detecting timer])
the terminal apparatus is caused to configure a beam failure instance counter (BFI_COUNTER) of the PSCeII of the deactivated SCG to 0. (¶0021 SN 103 may be associated with a secondary cell group (SCG). The SCG may refer to a group of serving cells associated with SN 103, and may include a primary secondary cell (PSCell) & ¶0133 Case C-3: Both BFD and BFR procedures are not needed when the SN of the UE is in the deactivated state. In particular, in Step 3, if the UE receives a deactivation indication or determines an expiry of a timer associated with deactivating the SN of the UE, the UE sets a beam failure instance counter (e.g., BFI_COUNTER) to 0 and stops a beam failure detecting timer (e.g., BeamFailureDetectionTimer). [i.e. when BFD is not performed due to an SCG deactivation indication, the BFI_COUNTER is set to 0, that would be for the SCG which is shown to include a PSCell])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang’s invention of methods and apparatuses for deactivating and activating a SCG in a MR-DC scenario to include Wu’s teaching of determining the deactivation signalling includes no information indicating beam failure detection to be performed during a deactivated state of the SCG, because it provides enhanced mechanisms in an clear and efficient manner relating to a UE’s new behaviors associated with beam failure detection when the SN of the UE is in a deactivated state. (see Wu ¶0037-¶0038)
Claim 3 is a directed towards a method claim that recites similar limitations to apparatus claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons that were given for claim 2.
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 GARY A MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 to 5.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. 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.
/G.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights