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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 4-9, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, line 3, ““a first timer” is not clearly introduced in a way that defines what it is.
Claim 4, line 8, “a first counter” is not clearly tied to a specific earlier element.
Claim 8, line 6, “the upper layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8, line 3, “first counter” is vague because the claim does not identify what counter is being referenced, what event increments it, or how it is distinguished from other counters.
Claim 8, line 4, “preset threshold” is indefinite because the claim does not specify what threshold is being preset, by which entity, or according to what criteria.
Claim 8, lines 6-7, “upper layer” is unclear because the claim does not define what specific layer is intended, leaving the scope of the term uncertain.
Claim 9, line 3, “lower layer” is unclear because the claim does not define what specific layer is intended, leaving the scope of the term uncertain.
Claim 12, line 2, “the common configuration” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 13 and 14, line 2, “the configuration” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 20220225457 A1) in view of MATTAM et al. (US 20220132333 A1) and WANG et al. (US 20250175238 A1).
PURKAYASTHA et al. discloses a communication comprising: regarding claims 1 and 10, An apparatus for evaluating downlink radio link quality, applicable to a terminal equipment, the apparatus comprising: first configuring processor circuitry configured to configure a secondary cell group (SCG) (see [0013], “an apparatus for wireless communication includes means for receiving, from a UE operating in an SCG deactivated state, an SCG failure information message based at least in part on one of: a PSCell RLF detection based at least in part on RLM reference signal measurements, or a BFD based at least in part on BFD reference signal measurements; means for transmitting, to a secondary node, the SCG failure information message; means for receiving, from the secondary node, an RRC reconfiguration based at least in part on the SCG failure information message; and means for transmitting, to the UE, the RRC reconfiguration received from the secondary node”); when the secondary cell group is deactivated, the terminal equipment performs radio link monitoring on a primary secondary cell (PSCell) (see [0053] “During an RLM procedure performed while the UE is operating in the SCG deactivated state, the UE may measure downlink RLM reference signals on the PSCell received from the base station”); when the secondary cell group is deactivated, the terminal equipment performs beam failure detection of the primary secondary cell (see [0059] “When the UE is in the SCG deactivated state, the UE may detect RLF (e.g., PSCell RLF due to the PSCell being out of coverage with respect to the UE) based at least in part on the RLM measurements and/or the BFD”).
PURKAYASTHA et al. does not disclose: in a case where a network indicates that the secondary cell group supports radio link monitoring (RLM); the primary secondary cell is not configured with two BFD-RS (Reference Signal) sets by the network.
MATTAM et al. discloses a communication system comprising: in a case where a network indicates that the secondary cell group supports radio link monitoring (RLM) (see [0126] “it is indicated to the UE by the network entity whether to continue or stop monitoring of at least one of RLM and BFD upon SCG deactivation”). WANG et al. discloses a communication system comprising: the primary secondary cell is not configured with two BFD-RS (Reference Signal) sets by the network (see [0095] “one or more of the cells may be configured with only one BFD-RS set”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PURKAYASTHA et al., by using the features as taught by MATTAM et al. and WANG et al., in order to improve network coordination and maintain stable connectivity when the SCG is deactivated.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, PURKAYASTHA et al. and WANG et al. do not disclose, but MATTAM et al. discloses: common configuration indicates that whether radio link monitoring is supported when the secondary cell group is deactivated, and whether beam failure detection is supported when the secondary cell group is deactivated (see [0126] “it is indicated to the UE by the network entity whether to continue or stop monitoring of at least one of RLM and BFD upon SCG deactivation. This can be indicated along with the SCG deactivation message. When it is indicated and no new configurations are provided for the at least one of RLM and BFD, UE pursues after the SCG deactivation at least one of RLC and BFD with utilizing existing configurations for RLM and BFD, that is, configurations which were applicable as before SCG deactivation”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PURKAYASTHA et al. and WANG et al, by using the features as taught by MATTAM et al., in order to provides a more efficient and standardized way to manage link monitoring and failure detection across the network, thereby improving interoperability, reducing signaling ambiguity, and maintaining reliable connection handling when the secondary cell group is deactivated.
5. Claims 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 20220225457 A1) in view of MATTAM et al. (US 20220132333 A1) and WANG et al. (US 20250175238 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KIM et al. (US 20230217398 A1).
PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 20220225457 A1) in view of MATTAM et al. (US 20220132333 A1) and WANG et al. (US 20250175238 A1) disclose the claimed limitations above. PURKAYASTHA et al., MATTAM et al. and WANG et al. do not disclose, but KIM et al. discloses: regarding claim 3, wherein for the configured secondary cell group, when an upper layer indicates that the secondary cell group is deactivated, an MAC entity will perform: deactivating all secondary cells (SCells) of the configured secondary cell group (see [0271], “when the terminal receives the indicator for suspending the cell group, the terminal may deactivate all SCells configured in the cell group”); and resetting MAC (see Abstract, “Provided is a method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system that includes receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message including information associated with a deactivation of a secondary cell group (SCG), and resetting a medium access control (MAC) of the SCG based on the RRC message”);
Regarding claim 4, wherein the resetting MAC comprises at least one of the following: stopping all other running timers than a first timer (see [0653], “a procedure of stopping all timers except for the TAT timer related to the cell group (SCG or PSCell) if there are the timers running in the MAC layer device may be performed as one operation of the MAC layer device partial reset procedure”); stopping an ongoing random access procedure; clearing an Msg3 buffer; clearing an MSGA buffer (see [0658] A message 3 (Msg3) buffer may be flushed. [0659] A message A (MSGA) buffer may be flushed); cancelling triggered beam failure recovery (BFR) (see [0663] If there is a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure, the procedure may be cancelled); and resetting a first counter (see [0668] All beam failure counter parameters (BFI_COUNTER) are reset (e.g., set to a value of 0));
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first timer comprising beamFailureDetectionTimer associated with the PSCell and TA timer (see [0672], “if a TAT timer related to the cell group (SCG or PSCell) or a beam failure detection timer (BeamFailureDetectionTimer) related to the cell group (SCG or PSCell) is running, the timer may be continuously operated (or used). ”). Regarding claim 6, wherein the stopping all other running timers than a first timer or stopping all running timers comprises: stopping all other running timers than the first timer when the network indicates that the secondary cell group supports radio link monitoring and/or beam failure detection and the primary secondary cell of the secondary cell group is configured with the reference signal for beam failure detection of a cell (see [0668] “when an RRC message which includes an indicator indicating deactivation of a cell group (or in which the cell group state is configured to as a deactivated state) is received, the previous cell group state is an activated state, the terminal is in an RRC-connected mode, the RRC message includes configuration information indicating to perform an RLM procedure or a BFD procedure”; [0672], “a procedure of stopping all timers except for a TAT timer related to the cell group (SCG or PSCell) or a beam failure detection timer (BeamFailureDetectionTimer) related to the cell group (SCG or PSCell) may be performed”);
Regarding claim 7, wherein the cancelling triggered beam failure recovery comprises at least one of the following: cancelling beam failure recovery triggered by the primary secondary cell (see [0672] “When an RRC message which includes an indicator indicating deactivation of a cell group (or PSCell) (or in which the cell group state is configured as a deactivated state) is received”,; [0663], “If there is a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure, the procedure may be cancelled”); cancelling beam failure recovery triggered by a BFD-RS set of the primary secondary cell; not cancelling beam failure recovery triggered by a BFD-RS set of the primary secondary cell; and stopping beam failure detection of one BFD-RS set of the primary secondary cell.
Regarding claim 12, the common configuration indicates that whether radio link monitoring and beam failure detection are performed by the terminal equipment,
the beam failure detection comprises beam failure detection of a cell (see [0200], “if radio link monitoring (RLM) configuration information is configured in an RRC message indicating the cell group deactivation (or suspension)… if beam-related configuration information is configured in an RRC message indicating the cell group deactivation (or suspension), so that a beam failure detection procedure is performed, the terminal may perform a beam failure detection procedure”);
Regarding claim 13, the configuration indicating whether radio link monitoring and beam failure detection are supported is comprised in a CellGroupConfig IE (Information Element) (see [0728], “The dedicated SR for SCell BFR is included in MAC CellGroupConfig in the RRC message”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PURKAYASTHA et al., MATTAM et al. and WANG et al., by using the features as taught by KIM et al., in order to provide a coordinated way to manage SCG deactivation, preserve relevant timers and procedures, and standardize configuration signaling for radio link monitoring and beam failure detection, thereby improving reliability and implementation consistency.
5. Claims 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 20220225457 A1) in view of MATTAM et al. (US 20220132333 A1) and WANG et al. (US 20250175238 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallentin et al. (US 20250007596 A1).
PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 20220225457 A1) in view of MATTAM et al. (US 20220132333 A1) and WANG et al. (US 20250175238 A1) disclose the claimed limitations above. PURKAYASTHA et al., MATTAM et al. and WANG et al. do not disclose, but Wallentin et al. discloses: regarding claim 8, for each serving cell configured with beam failure detection (see [0179], “upon beam failure detected for a PSCell when SCG is deactivated, the UE MAC layer stops beam failure and indicates the beam failure to the UE RRC layer”), when a first counter is greater than or equal to a preset threshold (see [0179], “if BFI_COUNTER >= beamFailureInstanceMaxCount”), in a case where the serving cell is the primary secondary cell, the secondary cell group is deactivated and a beam failure of the primary secondary cell has not been indicated to the upper layer since the secondary cell group was deactivated, indicating a beam failure of the primary secondary cell by an MAC entity to an upper layer (see [0179] , “The MAC entity shall for each Serving Cell configured for beam failure detection”; “5> indicate beam failure of the PSCell to upper layers”); regarding claim 9, indicating a lower layer by the terminal equipment to stop beam failure detection on the primary secondary cell (see [0079], “1>if beam failure instance indication has been received from lower layers”; “5> stop beam failure detection on the PSCell”) when an indication from the MAC layer is received (see [0179] “the UE MAC layer stops beam failure and indicates the beam failure to the UE RRC layer”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PURKAYASTHA et al., MATTAM et al. and WANG et al., by using the features as taught by Wallentin et al., in order to improve the robustness, consistency, and coordination of SCG deactivation handling.
6. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 20220225457 A1) in view of MATTAM et al. (US 20220132333 A1) and WANG et al. (US 20250175238 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of KOSKELA et al. (US 20190320333 A1) .
PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 20220225457 A1) in view of MATTAM et al. (US 20220132333 A1) and WANG et al. (US 20250175238 A1) disclose the claimed limitations above. PURKAYASTHA et al., MATTAM et al. and WANG et al. do not disclose, but KOSKELA et al. discloses: regarding claim 14, the configuration indicating whether radio link monitoring and beam failure detection are supported is BOOLEAN data (see [0032] “a parameter is used to indicate if the explicit configuration (RS list) is always applied to radio link monitoring (radio link failure detection) and/or beam failure detection or only applied when no TCI state for indicating non-periodic CSI-RS resource is active. One example implementation may be to have a binary indicator, e.g., a Boolean (true/false) variable to control the use of explicit RS list”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PURKAYASTHA et al., MATTAM et al. and WANG et al., by using the features as taught by KOSKELA et al., in order to improve implementation efficiency and reduce signaling complexity.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yan et al. (US 12004109 B2) discloses provides a communication method in a deactivated state of a secondary cell group.
Deenoo et al. (US 11419173 B2) discloses methods for beam failure recovery and management for multi-carrier communications.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWANG B YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights