DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on page 8 of Remarks, that “Ramachandra's paragraphs [0074] and [0075] are part of a procedure about which Ramachandra explicitly says: "This procedure is not supported for NE-DC" (paragraph [0073]). Thus, while Ramachandra does mention dual connectivity in the document, the specific procedure
involving receiving from a secondary base station via a signaling radio bearer 3 an RRC
reconfiguration message is explicitly disclaimed by Ramachandra from being applicable to NE-DC. This kind of explicit "teaching away" must be considered when evaluating whether the combination of references is non-obvious, and such teaching away should be deemed to render the proposed combination of references non-obvious.”
Paragraph [0073] of Ramachandra specifically limits the procedure to being unsupported for NE-DC. As seen in paragraphs [0039]-[0042] of this reference, other forms of dual connectivity are supported: “[0039] MR-DC with the 5GC [0040] E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity: NG-RAN supports NG-RAN E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (NGEN-DC), in which a UE is connected to one ng-eNB that acts as a MN and one gNB that acts as a SN. [0041] NR-E-UTRA Dual Connectivity: NG-RAN supports NR-E-UTRA Dual Connectivity (NE-DC), in which a UE is connected to one gNB that acts as a MN and one ng-eNB that acts as a SN. [0042] NR-NR Dual Connectivity: NG-RAN supports NR-NR Dual Connectivity (NR-DC), in which a UE is connected to one gNB that acts as a MN and another gNB that acts as a SN. In addition, NR-DC can also be used when a UE is connected to two gNB-DUs, one serving the MCG and the other serving the SCG, connected to the same gNB-CU, acting both as a MN and as a SN.” The only requirement in relation to dual connectivity in claim 1 is that the master base station and the secondary base station are associated with dual connectivity. Because paragraph [0073] only forbids NE-DC in relation to the outlined procedure, and because Ramachandra discloses various other types of dual connectivity, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Ramachandra does not teach away from claim 1.
Applicant asserts, on page 8 of Remarks, that “Even if the teaching away issue were overcome in some way, Ramachandra also addresses L1/L2 centric mobility, which it describes with reference to Rel-17 in the background section. Paragraphs [0074] and [0075] of Ramachandra are also from the background section, but there is no mention that the procedure of paragraphs [0074] and [0075] is (or should be) related to the L1/L2 centric mobility. Indeed, the cited procedures of paragraphs [0074] and [0075] are described by Ramachandra as being a secondary node modification procedure without master node involvement (paragraph [0074] inter alia). Ramachandra, although aware of L1/L2 centric mobility, does not hint or suggest that the procedure of paragraphs [0074] and [0075] is applicable to L1/L2 centric mobility. Thus, among other things, Ramachandra fails to disclose or suggest "sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station and via the SRB3, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action seems to have acknowledged this issue, at least in part, and cited Wu and Da Silva to remedy the deficiencies of Ramachandra. More specifically, the Office Action acknowledged that Ramachandra fails to disclose or suggest at least, "sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station and via the SRB3, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE." The Office Action cited Wu, paragraph [0276] to remedy these deficiencies.”
On the contrary, it was never acknowledged that Ramachandra fails to disclose the entire limitation “sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station and via the SRB3, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE.” The rejection of claim 1 clearly indicates that this limitation, sans “and via the SRB3”, is disclosed by Ramachandra. Specifically, Ramachandra illustrates, in Fig. 14, which is described in paragraphs [0165]-[0195], the UE receiving a MAC CE from the Secondary Node. Paragraphs [0165]-[0167] read: “[0165] Referring to FIG. 14, a method at a UE according to some embodiments includes receiving a L1/L2-centric mobility configuration for an SpCell of the SCG, for operating in MR-DC; and operating according to the L1/L2-centric mobility configuration for an SpCell of the SCG, while operating in MR-DC; that includes at least the following: [0166] Performing L1 measurements (e.g. SS-RSRP, CSI-RSRP) and/or reporting for cells and/or PCIs in the same frequency of the PSCell that are not the PSCell. [0167] Receiving L1/L2 signaling (e.g. via SCG MAC), such as MAC CE(s), to indicate a PSCell change (e.g. indicate a new PSCell) and/or to indicate a PCI change for the PSCell.” [emphasis added]. Paragraph [0190] reads: “The method further includes applying the configuration for modifying the MR-DC configuration (and/or changing the PSCell, possibly with SN change) and to add the L1/L2-centric mobility configuration for an SpCell of the SCG, wherein after applying the SCG RRCReconfiguration and after transmitting a Complete message (an RRCReconfigurationComplete message to the MN) the UE starts to perform procedures according to the L1/L2-centric mobility configuration for an SpCell of the SCG.” [emphasis added]. Finally, in paragraph [0155], Ramachandra states that an RRCReconfigurationComplete message that is sent to the MN is forwarded to the SN: “Then, the MN can forward the SCG RRCReconfigurationComplete to the S-SN.” [emphasis added]. Therefore, Ramachandra discloses “sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station … an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE.”
Applicant asserts, on page 9 of Remarks, that “However, Wu paragraph [0276] merely indicates that "the S-SN 106A can transmit an RRC reconfiguration message to the UE 102 via SRB3 to configure the UE 102 to perform PSCell change from PSCell 126A to a new PSCell In response, the UE 102 can transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message via the SRB3 to the S-SN 106A." Wu fails to disclose or suggest
at least "sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station and via the SRB3, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE." Wu does not even mention LTM nor does it suggest that the RRC reconfiguration complete message should have any relation to any MAC CE.
Applicant acknowledges that this is a rejection based on a combination of references. However, the primary reference, Ramachandran, also does not disclose or suggest that the cited procedure of FIG. 8 of Ramachandran (corresponding to paragraphs [0074] and [0075] includes any LTM procedure nor that it has any relation to the reception of any MAC CE.”
Wu is not relied on for disclosing the entire limitation “sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station and via the SRB3, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE.” Rather, Wu is merely relied on for disclosing that “and via the SRB3” applies to the sending of an RRC reconfiguration complete message from a wireless device to a secondary base station, which, as can be seen in the portion of paragraph [0276] quoted by Application, Wu does disclose.
Applicant asserts, on page 9 of Remarks, that “Applicant respectfully submits that even assuming for the sake of argument that the candidate DU can be considered a secondary cell, the claim recites "the secondary base station" namely the same secondary base station associated with dual connectivity and with which the wireless device has been communicating previously. A candidate DU, if treated as a cell, would seem to be more akin to a target cell. Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument, that Da Silva discloses sending an RRC reconfiguration complete message to the candidate DU, and assuming that the person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references to include this element, the result would not be the claimed invention, which includes: "sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station and via the SRB3, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE."”
On the contrary, Da Silva states, in paragraph [0208]: “According to certain embodiments, the at least one set of cells corresponds to a (suggested, requested) set of Secondary Cell (SCell) candidates for L1/L2 inter-cell mobility (e.g., for carrier aggregation). These are candidate cells in the same or in a different frequency (SSB frequency and/or SSB subcarrier spacing) as the UE's current SpCell (e.g., PCell).” [emphasis added]. Therefore, in Da Silva, a candidate cell is also an SCell.
Applicant asserts, on pages 9-10 of Remarks, that “Furthermore, like Ramachandran and Wu, Da Silva does not disclose that the RRC reconfiguration complete message is sent after receiving the MAC CE from the secondary base station. Thus, the combination of Ramachandran, Wu, and Da Silva fails to disclose or suggest at least, "sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station and via the SRB3, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE," as recited by claim 1. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
Applicant’s assertion is moot, because Da Silva is not relied on for disclosing that the RRC reconfiguration complete message is sent after receiving the MAC CE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0022973 (hereinafter Ramachandra), in view of Wu, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0143942 (hereinafter Wu), further in view of Da Silva et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0365594 (hereinafter Da Silva).
Regarding claim 1, Ramachandra discloses a method (disclosed is a method performed by a UE, according to Abstract, [0118]) comprising:
communicating, by a wireless device:
first packets with a master base station associated with a dual connectivity of the wireless device (the UE engages in multi-radio access technology dual connectivity (MR-DC) communications with a master node (MN), according to [0032]); and
second packets with a secondary base station associated with the dual connectivity (the UE engages in MR-DC communications with a secondary node (SN), according to [0032]);
receiving, by the wireless device from the secondary base station and via a signaling radio bearer 3 (SRB3), a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message indicating a layer 1 and/or layer 2 based mobility (LTM) procedure for the wireless device (as part of an SN modification procedure associated with an SCG (secondary cell group) (which entails lower layer, L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility, according to Abstract, [0020]-[0021]), the UE receives an RRC reconfiguration message from the SN via SRB3, according to [0074]-[0075]), wherein the RRC reconfiguration message comprises:
an identifier of a target cell for the LTM procedure (the RRC reconfiguration message informs the UE of the PCI (physical cell identity) [“identifier”] of the PSCell [“target cell”] for the L1/L2 centric mobility procedure, according to [0074]-[0077], [0130]); and
configuration parameters of the target cell (the RRC reconfiguration message comprises configuration information enabling the UE to synchronize with the PSCell, according to [0074]-[0077], [0130]);
sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station, one or more layer 1 measurement reports of the target cell (the UE sends an L1 measurement report, associated with the PSCell, to the SN, according to [0161], [0166], [0198], [0296], Fig. 14);
receiving, by the wireless device from the secondary base station, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) triggering a cell change to the target cell for the LTM procedure (the UE receives, from the SN, a MAC CE indicating the PSCell change, according to [0167], Fig. 14); and
sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the LTM procedure after receiving the MAC CE (after receiving the MAC CE, the UE sends, to the MN, an RRC reconfiguration complete message for the L1/L2 centric mobility procedure, according to [0190], whereby the MN forwards the RRC reconfiguration complete message to the SN, according to [0155]).
Ramachandra does not expressly disclose that the RRC reconfiguration complete message is sent from the wireless device to the secondary base station via the SRB3, nor that the RRC reconfiguration message comprises a measurement configuration comprising one or more channel state information (CSI) report configuration parameters for the LTM procedure, sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station, a first RRC reconfiguration complete message, whereby the one or more layer 1 measurement reports are sent based on the measurement configuration.
Wu discloses that the RRC reconfiguration complete message is sent from the wireless device to the secondary base station via the SRB3 (a UE sends an RRC reconfiguration complete message, via the SRB3, to an S-SN, according to [0276]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra with Wu such that the RRC reconfiguration complete message is sent from the wireless device to the secondary base station via the SRB3.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the exchange of SN-related information between a UE and an SN (Wu: [0005]).
Neither Ramachandra nor Wu expressly discloses that the RRC reconfiguration message comprises a measurement configuration comprising one or more channel state information (CSI) report configuration parameters for the LTM procedure, sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station, a first RRC reconfiguration complete message, whereby the one or more layer 1 measurement reports are sent based on the measurement configuration.
Da Silva discloses that the RRC reconfiguration message comprises a measurement configuration comprising one or more channel state information (CSI) report configuration parameters for the LTM procedure (an RRC Reconfiguration message comprises a CSI measurement configuration, for L1/L2 intercell-mobility, that comprises parameters, according to [0068]-[0070]),
sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station, a first RRC reconfiguration complete message (a UE sends, to a candidate DU (which may be a secondary cell), an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message, according to [0027], [0315]-[0316]),
whereby the one or more layer 1 measurement reports are sent based on the measurement configuration (the UE sends a Measurement Report according to the measurement configuration, whereby said measurement configuration specifies an L1 RSRP measurement, according to [0307]-[0308]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Wu with Da Silva such that the RRC reconfiguration message comprises a measurement configuration comprising one or more channel state information (CSI) report configuration parameters for the LTM procedure, sending, by the wireless device to the secondary base station, a first RRC reconfiguration complete message, whereby the one or more layer 1 measurement reports are sent based on the measurement configuration.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize latency, overhead, and interruption time (Da Silva: [0005]-[0006], [0020]-[0022]).
Claim 8 recites a wireless device comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Ramachandra discloses that the UE comprises a processor and a memory that stores instructions that are executed by said processor, according to [0300], Fig. 20 [elements 300, 303, and 305]), cause the wireless device to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Ramachandra discloses a non-transitory storage medium including program code that is executed by the UE’s processor, according to [0319]), cause a wireless device to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ramachandra, Wu, and Da Silva discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses that the wireless device performs the LTM procedure to the target cell in response to the MAC CE (in response to receiving the MAC CE, the UE performs the L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility procedure for the PSCell, according to [0167]-[0170], Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ramachandra, Wu, and Da Silva discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses that the wireless device is connected with the master base station and the secondary base station (the UE operates in MR-DC in relation to the MN and SN, according to Abstract, [0032], [0165], Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ramachandra, Wu, and Da Silva discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses the secondary base station determines/generates the target cell for the LTM procedure (the RRC reconfiguration message sent from the SN informs the UE of the PCI of the PSCell for the L1/L2 centric mobility procedure, according to [0074]-[0077], [0130]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ramachandra, Wu, and Da Silva discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Ramachandra nor Wu expressly discloses that the secondary base
station determines/generates the configuration parameters of the target cell.
Da Silva discloses that the secondary base station determines/generates the configuration parameters of the target cell (a candidate DU (which may be a secondary cell, according to [0315]) generates the measurement configuration that is associated with L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility, which comprises parameters, according to [0027], [0068]-[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Wu as modified by Da Silva with Da Silva such that the secondary base station determines/generates the configuration parameters of the target cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize latency, overhead, and interruption time (Da Silva: [0005]-[0006], [0020]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ramachandra, Wu, and Da Silva discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses that the wireless device generates the one or more layer 1 measurement reports (the UE generates an L1 measurement report, according to [0161], [0166], [0198], [0296], Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ramachandra, Wu, and Da Silva discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses that the one or more layer 1 measurement reports comprises one or more measurement results of one or more reference signals configured by the configuration parameters of the target cell (the reported L1 measurements are performed on reference signals that are associated with the PScell that is configured with sync, according to [0161], [0309]).
Claims 9-14 do not differ substantively from claims 2-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-7, respectively.
Claims 16-20 do not differ substantively from claims 2-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-6, respectively.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights