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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2, “secondary cell group” should be replaced with “secondary cell group (SCG)” in order to properly establish the subsequent instances of the abbreviation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 5-6, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Kung et al. (US 2021/0218458, Kung hereafter)
RE claim 1, Kung discloses a second radio communication device comprising: a receiver (Figure 2, UE 250) configured to receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message (Paragraphs 285-320, RRC Reconfiguration) from a first radio communication device (Figure 2, BS 210); and a controller configured to, when the RRC message includes a first parameter and a second parameter, control to perform processing according to the second parameter (Paragraphs/Steps 286-290 and 303-320 are performed by a UE upon receiving from the network a RRC Reconfiguration message further comprised of a CellGroupConfig IE which further contains a spCellConfig with reconfigurationWithSync. The UE performs processing according to this message and protocol. Paragraph 290, suspended bearers are resumed).
Kung discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the processing according to the second parameter occurs after performing processing of resuming a radio bearer in a suspended state.
However, it would have merely been a matter of design choice to modify the steps disclosed in paragraphs 289 and 290 so as to have the bearer resumption step occur before processing the reconfigurationWithSync parameter. These steps are of a 3GPP specification whereby Examiner understands the numbered indent to indicate an ordered step. However it is further Examiners position that the main “1>” indents merely indicate a list of steps that must occur to meet the specification and the order in which they occur is not critical. The same goes for the plural “2>” indent steps under some of them. In this case paragraphs 280 and 290 are of equal priority and order. It would be a mere design choice of one of ordinary skill to have one occur before another while still meeting the specification.
Lacking any criticality, to shift location of prior art parts does not make the claimed invention patentable over that prior art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
RE claim 3, Kung discloses the second radio communication device according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kung further discloses wherein the radio bearer is a radio bearer associated with a secondary cell group (Paragraphs/Steps 286-290 and 303-320).
RE claim 5, Kung discloses the second radio communication device according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kung further discloses wherein the radio bearer is a data radio bearer (Paragraphs/Steps 286-290 and 303-320).
RE claim 6, Kung discloses a first radio communication device comprising: a transmitter (Figure 2, BS 210) configured to transmit a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message to a second radio communication device (Figure 2, UE 250); and a controller configured to control, by controlling to cause the RRC message to include a first parameter and a second parameter, to cause the second radio communication device to perform processing according to the second parameter (Paragraphs/Steps 286-290 and 303-320 are performed by a UE upon receiving from the network a RRC Reconfiguration message further comprised of a CellGroupConfig IE which further contains a spCellConfig with reconfigurationWithSync. The UE performs processing according to this message and protocol. Paragraph 290, suspended bearers are resumed).
Kung discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the processing according to the second parameter occurs after performing processing of resuming a radio bearer in a suspended state.
However, it would have merely been a matter of design choice to modify the steps disclosed in paragraphs 289 and 290 so as to have the bearer resumption step occur before processing the reconfigurationWithSync parameter. These steps are of a 3GPP specification whereby Examiner understands the numbered indent to indicate an ordered step. However it is further Examiners position that the main “1>” indents merely indicate a list of steps that must occur to meet the specification and the order in which they occur is not critical. The same goes for the plural “2>” indent steps under some of them. In this case paragraphs 280 and 290 are of equal priority and order. It would be a mere design choice of one of ordinary skill to have one occur before another while still meeting the specification.
Lacking any criticality, to shift location of prior art parts does not make the claimed invention patentable over that prior art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
RE claim 8, Kung discloses the first radio communication device according to claim 6 as set forth above. Note that Kung further discloses wherein the radio bearer is a radio bearer associated with a secondary cell group (Paragraphs/Steps 286-290 and 303-320).
RE claim 10, Kung discloses the first radio communication device according to claim 6 as set forth above. Note that Kung further discloses wherein the radio bearer is a data radio bearer (Paragraphs/Steps 286-290 and 303-320).
RE claim 11, Kung discloses radio communication system comprising: a first radio communication device (Figure 2, BS 210)configured to transmit a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message; and a second radio communication device configured to receive the RRC message (Figure 2, UE 250), and when some or all of configured radio bearers are in a suspended state and the RRC message includes a first parameter and a second parameter, control to perform processing according to the second parameter (Paragraphs/Steps 286-290 and 303-320 are performed by a UE upon receiving from the network a RRC Reconfiguration message further comprised of a CellGroupConfig IE which further contains a spCellConfig with reconfigurationWithSync. The UE performs processing according to this message and protocol. Paragraph 290, suspended bearers are resumed).
Kung discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the processing according to the second parameter occurs after performing processing of resuming a radio bearer in a suspended state.
However, it would have merely been a matter of design choice to modify the steps disclosed in paragraphs 289 and 290 so as to have the bearer resumption step occur before processing the reconfigurationWithSync parameter. These steps are of a 3GPP specification whereby Examiner understands the numbered indent to indicate an ordered step. However it is further Examiners position that the main “1>” indents merely indicate a list of steps that must occur to meet the specification and the order in which they occur is not critical. The same goes for the plural “2>” indent steps under some of them. In this case paragraphs 280 and 290 are of equal priority and order. It would be a mere design choice of one of ordinary skill to have one occur before another while still meeting the specification.
Lacking any criticality, to shift location of prior art parts does not make the claimed invention patentable over that prior art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0232494, Wang hereafter).
RE claim 2 and 7, Kung discloses the second radio communication device according to claim 1 and the first radio communication device according to claim 6 as set forth above. Kung does not explicitly disclose wherein the first parameter is a reconfiguration with sync parameter for a secondary cell group, and the second parameter is a parameter indicating that the SCG is in a deactivated state.
However, Wang teaches wherein the first parameter is a reconfiguration with sync parameter for a secondary cell group, and the second parameter is a parameter indicating that the SCG is in a deactivated state (Paragraph 119 teaches a terminal receiving an RRCReconfiguration messages comprising a “reconfigurationWithSync element and the RRCReconfiguration message indicates that the SCG is deactivated (such as, by a first indication). Then, the terminal device 130 determines to perform a PScell configuration (such as, change of PScell) and determines that the SCG is deactivated.”.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the devices of Kung with the teachings of Wang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung in view of Yilmaz et al. (US 2022/0141904, Yilmaz hereafter).
RE claims 4 and 9, Kung discloses the second radio communication device according to claim 1 and the first radio communication device according to claim 6 as set forth above. Note that Kung further discloses wherein the RRC message is RRC reconfiguration message (Paragraphs/Steps 286-290 and 303-320).
Kung does not explicitly disclose an RRC resumption message.
However, Yilmaz teaches an RRC resumption message (Paragraph 197, “the RRC resume mechanism is enhanced to permit a UE, with suspended MCG and SCG configurations, to be resumed, i.e. activated, with only the MCG while keeping the SCG suspended, i.e. deactivated.“.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the devices of Kung with the teachings of Yilmaz since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights